Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 200 Ct. Cases 522/2023
SARWJEET KAUR Vs. MANJEET SINGHAND ORS./0 (K.N. Katju Marg)
31.01.2025
Present: Sh. Ravinder Gaur, Ld. LAC for the complainant.
Arguments concluded.
Put up for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Himanshu Sehloth)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
31.01.2025
At 4:00 PM.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Gaur, Ld. LAC for the complainant.
Vide this order, this court shall decide the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The case of the complainant in brief is that on 19.12.2023, proposed
accused persons came to the rented accomodation of the complainant, occupied by
her and her husband and started beating them to vacate the rented premises. During
the scuffle, complainant alleges that she was beaten, her clothes were torn, she was
disrobed and proposed accused made her nude videography.
The complainant approached the police officials but they did not take
any action and therefore the present complaint before the court for issuing necessary
direction has been made.
ATR/status report was filed under the signatures of the ACP as well as
WSI Aarti. It is stated in the ATR that the complainant did not join the enquiry and
stated that she will give the statement after consultation with her advocate. Further, it
is stated that during 19.12.2023, a scuffle ensued between the husband of
complainant and proposed accused persons, during which, one lady, namely, Priyanka
received wounds around pre-anal region. It is further stated that the complainant
lodged the complaint with the police three days after the incident to counter the
criminal case registered vide FIR no. 111/23 u/s 324 IPC and 25 Arms Act. Further,
-- 1 of 3 --
one person, namely, Naveen, whose phone taken by the complainant Sarawjeet Kaur
@ Dimple for making the PCR call, was also inquired, who stated that the caller did
not have any injury or torn clothes but was nervous.
Argument heard. Record perused.
It also becomes imperative to keep in consideration the circumstances,
when an application or prayer u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be entertained by the court.
In Ms. Skipper beverages P.Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi), the
circumstances when the powers of magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C should be exercised,
has been explained.
“7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a 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. The discretion ought to be
exercised after proper 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
interests of justice demand that the police should step in to help
the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a
Magistrate even Under Section 202(1) of the Code after taking
cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of
the Code as held by Apex Court in 2001 (1) Supreme Page 129
titled "Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors."
The identity of the proposed accused persons is already known. From the
facts of the case and upon perusal of the ATR, it appears that the present complaint
has been filed as a counter-blast and with a delay, which has not been explained.
-- 2 of 3 --
Further, independent public person, namely, Naveen also stated that the complainant
had neither any torn clothes nor any injury.
No requirement is made out for scientific or field investigation by the
police officials. This court is of the opinion that discretion u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC is not
required to be exercised in the present case.
Also, if there is any need for police assistance, an inquiry can be ordered
u/s 202 Cr.PC. No grounds are made out for exercising discretion u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC.
Accordingly, the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C is dismissed.
However the complainant is not without a judicial succour.
Accordingly, cognizance is taken U/s 200 Cr.PC.
Put up for PSE on 23.05.2025.
(Himanshu Sehloth)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
31.01.2025
-- 3 of 3 --