Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CT Cases / 13077/2024
FAKHRUDDIN Vs. MOHD ARMAN /0
(New Usmanpur)
11.03.2026
Present: Sh. Pankaj Tyagi, counsel for the complainant.
(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.
Arguments have already been addressed and matter is fixed for
orders.
2. The complainant has alleged offences under section
318(4)/335/336(2)/338/336(3)/340(2) BNS against the
respondent with the allegations that respondent has committee
fraud upon him by entering into a property transaction with
respect to property which he never owned and has taken Rs.
10,00,000/- from the complainant as earnest money for sale of
the same.
3. I have carefully perused the complaint, annexed
documents and perused the status report.
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/11.03.2026
-- 1 of 7 --
4. In the matter of
“M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. State” 2002 Crl. LJ NOC 333 (Delhi), it has been held as
under : -
“Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to
register case and initiate investigation but this power has to
be exercised judiciously and not in mechanical manner.
Those cases where allegations are not very serious and
complainant himself is in possession of evidence to prove
allegation, there should be no need to pass order under
Section 156”.
5. In the case of
“Sukwasi Vs. State of Uttar Pardesh”
2008 Cri. L. J. 472, Division Bench of
Hon'ble High Court of
Allahabad has held that merely because a complaint discloses a
cognizable offence, application under Section 156 (3) of The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not bound to be allowed.
The following observations are relevant : -
“22. Applications under Section 156(3) of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are now coming
in torrents. Provisions under Section 156 (3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be
used sparingly. They should not be used
unless there is something unusual or extra
ordinary like miscarriage of justice, which
warrants a direction to the Police to register a
case. Such applications should not be allowed
because the law provides them with an
alternative remedy of filing a complaint,
therefore, recourse should not normally be
permitted for availing the provisions of Section
156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
23. The reference is, therefore, answered in the
manner that it is not incumbent upon a
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/11.03.2026
-- 2 of 7 --
Magistrate to allow an application under
Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and there is no such legal mandate. He
may or may not allow the application in his
discretion.”
6. In matter of
“Ravindra Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) & Anr.” 2013 VIII AD (DELHI) 403 of
Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi has held that:-
“04. Section 156 (3) empowers the Magistrate to refer and
direct the police to investigate the cognizable offence. It is
however not necessary to refer every complaint filed under
Section 200 to the police for investigation under Section
156 (3) of Cr. P.C.
05. Remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. is a
discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the word
'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind
while doing so and pass orders only if he is satisfied that
the information reveals commission of cognizable
offence/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. The complainant, as a matter
of right, cannot insist that the complaint case filed by
him/her should be directed in every eventuality to the
police for investigation.”
7. In matter of
“Zubair Ul-Abidin (Dr.) Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi)” 2014 III AD (DELHI) 61 of
Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi has held that : -
“12. Thus, the magistrate is not supposed to act
mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and
every case in routine and casual manner. Criminal law is
not expected to be set in motion on mere asking of a party.
There has to be some substance in the complaint filed and
it is only if it appears that the allegations are serious
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/11.03.2026
-- 3 of 7 --
enough and establish the commission of cognizable offence
required thorough investigation by the police an FIR should
be ordered to be registered.”
8. In matter of
“Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs.
State of UP & Ors.” in Criminal Appeal No.781 of 2012 decided
on 19.03.2015,
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case
registered on directions of the Court against public servant(s)
cautioned the magistracy at the time of passing of directions for
registration of FIR under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. and observed
as under : -
“24. Regard being had to the above-said enunciation of law,
it needs to be reiterated that the Learned Magistrate has to
remain vigilant with regard to allegations made and the
nature of allegations and not to issue directions without
proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind
that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and
then he may pass the requisite order.............................…”
9. Action Taken Report as per judgment of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in matter of “Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr.
Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.”, 170 (2010)
was called in this matter which was filed by EO/SI Deval as per
which no cognizable offence is made out as there is property
transaction between the parties which could not be completed as
construction stopped in between and hence the transaction failed
and the matter is civil in nature as respondent has not returned
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/11.03.2026
-- 4 of 7 --
the money of the complainant.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the
complainant. As per the ATR, filed by the EO, it is alleged that
respondent who was not the owner of the property agreed to sell
the same to the complainant and thereafter failed to execute the
sale documents in his favour and has allegedly taken Rs
10,00,000/- as earnest money and despite his failure to execute
the documents, has not returned the same. Perusal of the record
shows that complainant had entered into property transaction
with the respondent and an agreement to sale was executed,
pursuant to which the complainant appeared at the Sub-Registrar
Office but the respondent did not appear and later on sold the
said property to some other person. It is further alleged that later
on complainant came to know that respondent is not even the
owner of the said property and thereafter even failed to return the
money of the complainant. With the ATR, statement of the
complainant is attached as per which civil suit is pending and
construction of the property was stopped midway.
11. As discussed above in an application under section
175 (3) BNSS the examination of Court is limited to find out
whether any cognizable offence is made out or not.
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/11.03.2026
-- 5 of 7 --
12. In totality of circumstances, this is not a fit case for
invoking powers under Section 175 (3) of BNSS, 2023 and for
directing the SHO of concerned police station to register FIR for
the following reasons : -
a. The identity of the accused persons is already known.
b. No facts are to be unearthed so as to require aid of police
and it is also not the case where the collection of evidence
is required.
c. Custodial interrogation of the accused person(s) is not
necessary.
d. The evidence required in the case is within the reach of the
complainant.
e. The present application appears to have been only filed to
put pressure on opposite side by getting registered FIR
against them and create a influence on the civil suit already
filed by the complainant.
f. Furthermore, if, police aid would be required at any stage
the same could be sought under Section 225 of BNSS and
further, aid of Section 94, 96 and 97 of BNSS could be
taken at appropriate stage and time, if required.
g. The allegations prima facie appear to be civil in nature
from the perusal of the ATR and Statement attached along
with the same.
13. In view of the above-said reasons, application of the
applicant/complainant under Section 175 (3) of BNSS, 2023 is
hereby dismissed.
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/11.03.2026
-- 6 of 7 --
14. The complainant has come before this Court with
jural succor and therefore, the complainant should be given an
opportunity to prove his allegations leveled in the complaint.
Since the complainant is alleging commission of offences as
mentioned in his complaint against proposed accused persons,
therefore, complainant is given an opportunity to prove his case
by leading evidence.
Now put up for PSE on 30.07.2026.
Dasti copy of order be given as prayed for.
(Anmol Nohria)
JMFC-02/NE/KKD Courts/Delhi/11.03.2026
-- 7 of 7 --