Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI KAPIL GUPTA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI
DISTRICT: NEW DELHI
Ct Cases 1986/2022
NIRMALA Vs. SHRI TARA CHAND & ANR
17.05.2023
-:ORDER:-
1. Vide this order, application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C seeking registration of
FIR against proposed accused no. 1 Sh. Tara Chand and proposed accused
no. 2 Sh. Bhim Sen moved on behalf of the complainant Nirmala shall be
disposed off.
2. Status report had been filed by the IO as per which the matter is civil
in nature and no cognizable offence is made out.
3. Arguments on the application were heard. Record had been perused.
I have also gone through the relevant provisions of law. Ld. Counsel for
complainant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case titled as Lallan Chaudhary & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Anr
in Appeal (Crl.) 1047 of 2006 in support of his contentions.
4. For the sake of brevity the facts averred in the complaint are not
reproduced here.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka
Srivastava and Another Versus State of U.P. and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC
287, enumerated certain guidelines pertaining to applications u/s 156 (3)
Cr.PC which are as follows:-
“There has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1)
Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3).
Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the
application and necessary documents to that effect shall
be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an
application under Section 156(3) be supported by an
affidavit is so that the person making the application
should be conscious and also endeavor to see that no false
affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to
be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance
with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the
authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3).”
6. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled
as Babu Venkatesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another,
(2022) 5 SCC 639 it has been held that prior to the filing of a petition
under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., there have to be applications under
Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C and with such a requirement, the
persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the
Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is observed that compliance of
Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C is mandatory before moving
application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
8. In the present case as per the averments, a complaint in compliance
of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C was made to the SHO PS Tilak Marg on
29.07.2022 for registration of FIR against the accused persons, however,
the police did not register the FIR. Perusal of record reveals that the
complainant has not approached higher officials in compliance of Section
154(3) Cr.P.C upon inaction of the SHO concerned to register the FIR. It
can be therefore observed that compliance of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C has
not been done by the complainant.
Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
9. In view of the same it is observed that compliance of Section 154(3)
Cr.P.C has not been done by the complainant and the same is in
contravention of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Courts as
observed above. It was the duty of the complainant to comply with Section
154(3) Cr.P.C before filing the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, however, the
same has not been done and thus, in considered opinion of the Court, the
present application cannot be considered and deserves to be dismissed as
the complainant has not complied with the directions passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid judgments. Further, judgment relied
upon by the Ld. Counsel for complainant is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 156(3)
Cr. P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the (Kapil Gupta)
court on 17.05.2023 MM-07/PHC/NDD/17.05.2023
Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --