Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: :1:
33 CT Cases / 29/2026
RAJ RANI Vs. RAJKUMAR
(Bhajan Pura)
05.06.2026
Present: None for complainant.
1. The complainant has filed the complaint u/s 223 BNSS alongwith an
application u/s 175 (3) BNSS. On the application of the complainant, status report
was called from the SHO, PS concerned. The status report was filed by PSI Pankaj
kumar and forwarded by SHO concerned wherein it is mentioned that the matter is
civil in nature and that no cognizable offence was made out.
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 complainants have alleged
that the complainant is having the share in the property bearing no. B-365, gali no. 16,
BhajanPura, Delhi-110053 as the same was self acquired property of her mother. The
complainant has alleged that the proposed accused i.e. Raj kumar, Anant Yadav, Dhruv
Gupta and Smt. Kamlesh in connivance with each other have prepared forged
ownership documents of property and thereby played fraud upon the complainant.
They have caused wrongful loss to the complainant. A complaint was made in the
concerned PS but no action was taken. Hence, the present complaint.
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
-- 1 of 3 --
:2:
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 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
-- 2 of 3 --
:3:
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”.
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 the case is entirely based upon documentary
evidence and no field investigation or custodial interrogation 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/225 BNSS. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the
application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C/175 BNSS is hereby dismissed. Let the complainant be
granted an opportunity to lead pre summoning evidence in support of his allegations.
Be put up on 22.09.2026 for pre summoning evidence.
(Kirandeep Kaur)
JMFC-01/NE/KKD/05.06.2026
-- 3 of 3 --