Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 38Ct. Cases1501/2023VANDANA Vs. SUNITA DEVI00/2023 (BhalswaDairy)
03.02.2025
Present: Complainant with ld. counsel.
ATR filed today and copy of the same has been supplied to the Ld. counsel for the
complainant. Same is perused also.
Arguments on application u/s 156 (3) CrPC heard.
List for orders at 2 pm.
(Bhujali)
JMFC01/North/Rohini
03.02.2025
At 2:30 pm.
Present: None.
An application u/s 156(3) alongwith a complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. had been moved by the
complainant against the accused with a prayer that the complaint be sent to the concerned PS for registration of
FIR. In view of application u/s 156(3), Status report was summoned from the concerned PS.
ORDER
I have carefully perused the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as the other material on
record. In this regard it becomes imperative to keep inconsideration the circumstances, when such an application
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. It
was held that:
"Section 156 empowers Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate
investigation but this power had to be exercised judiciously not in mechanical
manner. Those cases, where allegations are not very serious and complainant
himself in possession of evidence to prove allegation, there should be no need to
pass order U/s 156Cr.P.C."But,cases where Magistrate is of view that nature of
allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect, and
produce evidence before court,and interest of justice demand that police should
step into to help complainant, police assistance can be taken.
However, after perusal of the material on record and after hearing the submissions of counsel,
it is clear that the identity of the accused is known to the complainant and all the facts and circumstances of the
case, also appears to be within the knowledge of the complainant and evidence can be conveniently taken without
assistance of police investigation Custodial interrogation of the respondents is not necessary. Since the identity of
accomplices is not to be unraveled, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. It has been similarly held in
Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs State Of U.P. And Ors. 2002 CriLJ 2907 that
“where the complainant is in possession of the complete details of all the accused
as well as the witnesses who have to be examined and neither recovery is needed
nor any such material evidence is required to be collected which can be done only
by the police, no "investigation" would normally be required and the procedure of
complaint case should be adopted."
So, in the facts of the present case, there appears no requirement of police investigation.
Further, if there is any need, police inquiry can be had u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Accordingly with the above observations,
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Put up for consideration on complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 20.08.2025.
(Bhujali)
JMFC01/North/Rohini
03.02.2025
-- 1 of 1 --