Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 35 CT Cases / 536/2024
Gopal Singh Vs. Anshu
(Bhajan Pura)
19.12.2024
Present: None.
1) The complainant has filed the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C alongwith an
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On the application of the complainant, status
report was called from the SHO, PS concerned. The status report was
forwarded by DCP concerned and was filed by ASI Naushad Haider. It is
mentioned in the status report that one Ajay kumar have committed suicide
on 28.04.2024 in his house and regarding which DD no. 93A under Section
174 Cr. PC was registered and none of the family member had made any
statement to the IO. It is also mentioned in the status report that there is civil
dispute between the parties relating to property and that respondent no. 1 has
also filed Child Custody Matter in the family Court and the entire dispute is
civil in nature and also involves child custody.
2) I have gone through the complaint, the annexures and the status report / ATR
filed by the police. The complainant has filed the present complaint against
the respondents / proposed accused person. Briefly stated the complainant
has alleged that he is the brother of victim who has committed suicide. It is
mentioned in the complaint/application that deceased got married to
respondent no. 1 on 04.02.2009 and two children were born out of the
wedlock and that the deceased remained mostly out of Delhi for business
tours. That there was extra marital affair of respondent no. 1 and which came
to notice of her son on 15.12.2023 and that on 19.02.2024, the deceased
confronted respondent no. 1 in this regard and that respondent no. 1 used
filthy and abusive language against the deceased. That on the intervening
night of 05.03.2024 and 06.03.2024 both the childrens were beaten by
-- 1 of 4 --
respondent no. 1. That on 24.03.2024 respondent no. 1 left for her parents
house and that when on her return, the deceased inquired about her
whereabouts, she again shouted loudly and used abusive language against
the deceased. That in the intervening night of 28/29.03.2024, the respondent
no 1 without any provocation started verbally abusing the deceased. It is also
mentioned in the application that on 27.04.2024 as well, the deceased was
abused by respondent no. 1. That finally on 28.04.2024, the deceased
committed suicide after the continuous humiliation and harassment. That
police complaint was also made, however, no action was taken. Hence, the
present complaint filed.
3) I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
It is settled proposition of law that the power of the Magistrate to give
directions u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C is discretionary and the same has to be
exercised only when there is requirement of investigation / custodial
interrogation by the police. If the evidence is within the reach of
complainant, usually the directions u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C are not given. The
word used in the section 156 (3) Cr.P.C is “may”, whereas the word used in
section 154 Cr.P.C is “shall”. The wording of these section clearly implies
that the police is bound to register an FIR when an information regarding
cognizable offence is given to the police, whereas the Magistrate is not
bound to give directions u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, even though the complaint
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence as the Magistrate has to
see whether the investigation by the police is required or not in the given
case.
4) In the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as
Subharkaran Luharka v. State DoD 9-7-2010 delivered in Crl.
6122/23/05, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that if the evidence
is within the reach of the complainant and no investigation by the police is
required, the Magistrate should ask the complainant to lead the evidence
-- 2 of 4 --
rather than giving directions to the police for registration of FIR u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.
5. In the another judgment titled as M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt.
Ltd. v. State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has
observed as under :
“It is true that Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the Code empowers to
Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate
investigations but this power has to be exercised judiciously on proper
grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those cases where the
allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in
possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need
to pass orders under Section 156 (3) of the Code. This discretion ought
to be exercised after application of mind and only in those cases where
the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such
that the complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and
produce evidence before the court and interest of justice demand that
the police should step in the help of the complainant”.
6. Also in Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of MP 2001 (1) AD (Crl.)
S.C. 34' Hon'ble Apex Court stated that “ there are pre-requisites to the
followed by the complainant before approaching the Magistrate U/s 156
(3) of the code which is a discretionary remedy as the provision
proceeds with the word “May”. The magistrate is required to exercise
his mind while doing so. He should pass orders only if he is satisfied
that the information reveals commission of cognizable offences and also
about necessity of police investigation for digging out of evidence
neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the
assistance of the police. It is thus not necessary that in every case where
a complaint has been filed under section 200 of the code the Magistrate
should direct the police to investigate the crime merely because an
application has also been filed under section 156 (3) if the code even
though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or
-- 3 of 4 --
can be produced by summoning witnesses, may be with the assistance of
the court or otherwise. This issue of jurisdiction also becomes
important at that stage and cannot be ignored”.
7. In the present case, the complainant is aware about the name
and address of the proposed accused person. From the material on
record, the entire evidence is within the reach of the complainant
and no field investigation by the police is required at this stage.
Needless to say that if required later on, the investigation may be
directed u/s 202 Cr.P.C (corresponding provisions to 225 BNSS). In
view of the aforesaid reasons, the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C deserves
to be dismissed and therefore, the same is dismissed. Let the
complainant be granted an opportunity to lead pre summoning evidence
in support of his allegations. Be put up on 06.05.2024 for pre
summoning evidence.
(Pankaj Rai)
JMFC-01/NE/KKD/19.12.2024
-- 4 of 4 --