Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Cases / 269/2025
Lakshay Anand Vs. Kunal Ailawadi
/0 (Seelampur)
25.04.2026
Present: Sh. Abdus Samad Ansari, Counsel for complainant
(through VC).
(ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 175 (3) BNSS)
1. Vide this order the court shall take its decision on
the application u/S 175 (3) BNSS moved on behalf of the
complainant for registration of FIR against the proposed accused
persons.
2. The complainant has alleged offences under section
316/318/335/336/340 BNS against the respondents with the
allegations that he had come across respondents through social
media as he was planning a family tour to Dubai and thus
engaged the respondents for his travel, stay, visa etc. for three
people and paid them money. The Respondent no. 1 sent over
booking details of the hotels and asked for the remaining amount
to hand over the flight tickets. The complainant handed over the
remaining amount, after which Respondent no. 1 started making
excuses and did not give the same and demanded additional
Page No. 1 of 6
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/25.04.2026
-- 1 of 6 --
payment of Rs. 70,000/- and soon complainant realized that he
was being scammed. Thereafter, he asked the respondents to
cancel his tour upon which the respondents agreed to return the
amount and assured that they will reimburse Rs. 1,00,000/- in a
couple of days but the complainant only received Rs. 10,000/-
and after the same the respondents stopped answering calls of the
complainant and have not returned any money. It is also alleged
that the respondents gave fake visa and fake booking vouchers to
the complainant and as such have committed the afore-mentioned
offences.
3. The complainant also filed a complaint with local
police against the accused persons as well as to higher
authorities, however, no action was taken. Hence, the present
application u/S 175 (3) BNSS filed by the complainant.
4. ATR was called for which was filed by DCP, North
East and EO/PSI Harsh Sharma in which it has been stated that
there is cash transaction involved and no record of offline
payments and the respondents reside at Mukherjee Nagar, hence,
there is jurisdictional issue. It is also stated that the service
sought by the complainant were through online and the matter is
of deficiency of services and hence matter is civil in nature and
no cognizable offence is made out.
Page No. 2 of 6
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/25.04.2026
-- 2 of 6 --
5. The counsel appearing for the complainant has
submitted that despite cognizable offence, the police has failed to
discharged its statutory obligation by not registering the FIR on
the complaint. The Ld. Counsel also submits that police officials
wants to shirk their responsibility of by not registering the FIR on
the pretext that no cognizable offence is being made out.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
contentions of the complainant and have gone through the record
as well as perused the report and have also gone through the
documents placed on record by the complainant.
7. My attention has also been drawn to the various
judicial pronouncements including Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of
U.P. & Ors.,
AIR 2014 SC 187; Lallan Chaudhary vs. State of
Bihar,
2006 (3) JCC 1731; & Radha vs. State of Delhi,
2011 (2)
JCC 1414 to show that when any complaint discloses
commission of a cognizable offence, the police is bound to
register the FIR.
8. I have considered the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and also gone through the ATR. From the perusal
of the complaint, it is clear that matter has not been investigated
properly by the police officials on the pretext of consumer
dispute, the mere assertion of the police that there is no proof of
Page No. 3 of 6
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/25.04.2026
-- 3 of 6 --
offline payment shows that matter has not been inquired properly.
The allegations made in the complaint and the material placed on
record clearly shows that the complainant has been provided with
certain booking details and visa by the respondents persons and
certain payment has definitely been made by the complainant to
the respondents. It is very well in question that scientific and
detailed investigation is required to determine the veracity of
such documents and to determine whether they are genuine or
forged. It is also noteworthy that there is another FIR of a similar
offence at PS- Mukherjee Nagar against Respondent no. 3 of
whom Respondent no. 1 and 2 are stated to be partners.
Obviously, the veracity and the genuineness of the allegations
made in the complaint can only be verified after proper
investigation and at this stage, it would not be proper to comment
upon the merits of the allegations and the averments made in the
complaint. In Ramesh Kumari vs. State,
2006 Cri LJ 1622, it was
held that -
“Genuineness or credibility of the
information is not a condition precedent
for registration of a case and that can
only be considered after registration of
the case. The mandate of Section 154 of
the Code is that at the stage of
registration of a crime or a case on the
basis of the information disclosing a
cognizable offence, the police officer
concerned cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to whether the information
laid by the informant is reliable and
Page No. 4 of 6
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/25.04.2026
-- 4 of 6 --
genuine or otherwise and refuse to
register a case on the ground that the
information is not relevant or credible.”
9. It is also a settled proposition of law that a First
Information Report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose
all facts and details of the offence reported. The provisions of
Section 173 of BNSS impose an absolute obligation and duty on
the officer in–charge of a police station to record information in
the FIR Register whenever the information so received discloses
the commission of a cognizable offence. Meaning thereby that
the officer in–charge of a police station has no option or
discretion to not to register an FIR in such circumstances
otherwise, it would defeat the Legislative intent behind the spirit
of Section 173 BNSS.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am satisfied
that the complaint in question discloses the commission of
various cognizable offences and the allegations, if taken on face
value, are also of serious nature, which may require sustained
interrogation / investigation and also possibly some scientific
investigation to bring out the truth on record. All the evidences
are not within the reach of complainant and further investigation
is required.
11. Hence, the present application u/S 175 (3) BNSS
stands allowed and the SHO, PS: Seelampur is directed to
Page No. 5 of 6
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/25.04.2026
-- 5 of 6 --
register an FIR. Copy of this order be sent to the SHO, PS:
Seelampur to register an FIR in the present case. Copy of the FIR
so registered be also supplied to the complainant within a week
from today.
12. Put up for compliance report on 02.05.2026.
Page No. 6 of 6
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/25.04.2026
-- 6 of 6 --