Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Cases 863/2023
DALIT MANAV UTTHAN SANSTHAN Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
& ORS.
(PS-KARAWAL NAGAR
25.02.2025
VC is not functioning due to some technical problem.
At 2.00 PM
Present:- None.
Order on application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Vide this order I shall dispose off an application filed on behalf of
the complainant u/s 156(3) Cr.PC.
Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint
are that complainant is an NGO (represented by AR in the present case) –
providing mid day meals in schools catered from Khasra No. 262, Karawal
Nagar leased by the accused to the NGO vide agreement dated 09.04.2018 and
same got expired after eleven months and tenancy got terminated on
08.03.2019.
The accused entered into an MOU dated 02.09.2019 with the
complainant whereby a relationship between seller and purchaser was entered
between complainant and accused for a consideration amount in sum of Rs.2
(two) crores to be paid to the proposed accused within 7 years or prior to that, in
order to execute a sale deed by paying a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month which
was to be considered as part of consideration amount, to which proposed
accused agreed. Accordingly, MOU was executed on a Rs.50/- stamp paper.
Thereafter, proposed accused filed civil suit as well as criminal complaint
against the complainant and since then he is giving threats to the complainant to
CT Cases 863/2023 DALIT MANAV UTTHAN SANSTHAN Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 1/3
-- 1 of 4 --
vacate the premises. It is further alleged that he executed MOU and did not
abide by the same.
Status report was filed by the EO wherein enquiry from the
proposed accused was conducted and he admitted execution of lease deed but
denied execution of any MOU. However, as per the IO, he sent screenshots of
MOU himself and it was executed at Tis Hazari Court. The person who
notorised the MOU had expired and the records were destroyed accordingly.
I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant.
Before deciding the application/prayer of section 156 (3) Cr. P.C,
let go through the relevant law. 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. In the judgment
by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Subhkaran Luharka v. NCT of Delhi,
(Crl. 6122/23/2005), 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 rather than giving directions to the police for registration of FIR u/s
156 (3) Cr.P.C. In the another judgment titled as M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt.
CT Cases 863/2023 DALIT MANAV UTTHAN SANSTHAN Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2/3
-- 2 of 4 --
Ltd. v. State, 2001 (59) DRJ 129 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”.
Also in Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of MP (AIR 2001 SC 571)
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 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”.
This court has considered the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel
for the complainant and also gone through the record. The complainant is aware
about the name and address of the proposed accused. The complainant is in
possession of the photocopies of the documents. He also has proof of payment
of amount to the proposed accused. In my view, the complainant can lead
CT Cases 863/2023 DALIT MANAV UTTHAN SANSTHAN Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 3/3
-- 3 of 4 --
evidence in the Court in support of his allegations by producing the relevant
record/relevant witnesses. The investigation by the police is not required, at this
stage. Needless to say that if required later on, the investigation may be directed
u/s 202 Cr.P.C. 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.
Put up on 02.07.2025 for pre summoning evidence.
(ISRA ZAIDI)
JMFC-04/NE/KKD/DELHI
25.02.2025
CT Cases 863/2023 DALIT MANAV UTTHAN SANSTHAN Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 4/3
-- 4 of 4 --