Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 160
Ct. Cases 1066/2023
SEEMA BHATIA Vs. AMRIK SINGH AND ORS.
/0 (K.N. Katju Marg)
17.08.2024
At 4:00 P.m.
Present: Complainant in person.
Arguments already heard.
This order shall dispose of the application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by
complainant. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she is residing in the
same vicinity with the proposed accused persons. It is alleged that all the proposed
accused persons, in active connivance and conspiracy are regularly harassing,
intimidating and threatening the complainant and her family members. It is alleged
that on various occasions different proposed accused persons have quareled and tried
to assault the complainant and her family members. It is also alleged that the
proposed accused persons have lodged false complaints at the concerned PS and
have further threatened false and malacious prosecution of the complainant and her
family members. Specific dates of incident have also been mentioned. Reliance is
also placed on the CCTV footages.
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. The complainant in support of her claim has also furnished
the videographs and copy of the complaint made to the authorities.
ATR was filed under the signatures of the SI Mohit Kumar and is dated
25.08.2023. It is stated in the ATR that upon inquiry, it was found that multiple
complaints have been lodged over petty issue of parking. It is further stated that
complainant and all the proposed accused persons are neighbours and have had
multiple verbal fights going on since several years. Further, HC Satender belt no.
1418/RD wrote a letter to DC, MCD, Rohini Zone informing them about the regular
complaints and PCR calls over petty issues and unauthorised car parking. Further, the
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2-
DC concerned has been requested to settle the issue and dedicate authorised space for
personal use of each neighbour. It is also stated in the ATR that the complainant has
installed CCTV camera with voice recorder outside her home but the neighbours have
objected on the grounds of breach of privacy. It is lastly stated that the entire dispute
between the complainants and the proposed accused persons revolves around the
parking issue.
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."
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3-
The identity of the proposed accused persons is already known. The
complainant is already in possession of the entire evidence including the copy of the
complaints, reply received to the RTI and video footages.
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 04.01.2025
(Himanshu Sehloth)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
17.08.2024
-- 3 of 3 --