Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 21Ct. Cases/1420/2024
JAI KISHAN Vs. SONI GUPTA
/0 (Model Town)
23.09.2025
Present: Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the complainant with complainant.
Vide this order, this court shall decide the application u/s 175(3) BNSS.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he wanted to purchase a
house and contacted the proposed accused person in the office of Dayal Properties
wherein proposed accused no. 1 Soni Gupta met him and portrayed that she was the
exclusive owner of the property i.e. A-36, Rajpura Chhawani, Second Floor, New
Gupta Colony, Delhi ad-measuring 90 square yards which she wanted to sell. It was
claimed that the said property was purchased by her husband Late Sh. Anil Gupta and
she was the exclusive owner after the demise of her husband. It is also claimed that
proposed accused no. 2 to 5 introduced themselves as relatives of proposed accused
no. 1 and also claimed that proposed accused no. 1 was in the exclusive possession of
the property in question. The deal was finalised for Rs. 40.5 Lacs and one agreement
to sale was prepared in the office of a person namely Amit Verma and then amount of
Rs. 5 Lacs was given by the complainant to proposed accused no. 1 and a receipt was
executed by the proposed accused. It was agreed that an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs was
to be paid by the complainant to proposed accused on or before 10.07.2024 and
remaining balance amount by 21.08.2024, upon which proposed accused no. 1 would
hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the abovementioned property. It is
claimed that proposed accused Soni Gupta had taken an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs in
front of Rajesh Manchanda at Dayal Properties and all other proposed accused
persons. The agreement to sell and the receipt have been signed by proposed accused
no. 2 to 4 and Rajesh Manchanda. It is claimed that on 27.07.2024 the complainant
got to know through Rajesh Manchanda that proposed accused persons have started
fighting over the said property and the complainant was shocked to know that despite
taking Rs. 15 Lacs and executing agreement to sell there were other persons claiming
-- 1 of 4 --
to be the wife and children of Late Sh. Anil Gupta. The complainant lodged a
complaint with PS Model Town and at that time was assured that the money would be
returned to him within 2 days. It is further claimed that at that time all the proposed
accused persons consoled the complainant and stated that they have already obtained
the stay order from the concerned court against the said wife and children of Late Sh.
Anil Gupta and that proposed accused person no. 1 was indeed the exclusive owner
of the property in question. That on 11.08.2024, proposed accused refused to return
his money and gave him threat to kill. It is further claimed that proposed accused no.
2 and proposed accused no. 5 furnished false details on the receipt executed earlier.
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 was filed under the signatures of the ASI Jagat and is dated
14.02.2025 which is duly forwarded by the SHO PS Model Town. As per the ATR
filed, an inquiry was conducted and it was revealed that an agreement to sale of the
property in question was entered into between the parties on 21.06.2024 and a sum of
Rs. 5 Lacs was paid by the complainant against which a receipt was issued. Further,
during the inquiry, sale agreement of the property in question executed by the
proposed accused in favor of the complainant Soni Gupta, Surviving Member
Certificate issued from Revenue Department, GNCTD and Death Certificate of Late
Sh. Anil Gupta was obtained wherein proposed accused Soni Gupta is mentioned as
wife of Late Sh. Anil Gupta. It is further stated a written statement has been obtained
from the complainant wherein he has urged for recovery of the money paid. Further,
proposed accused Soni Gupta has also filed a civil suit no. 14 CS SCJ 827/24 titled as
Soni Gupta Vs. Rahul Gupta against the respondents who are trying to dispossess her
from the said property and also claiming to be the wife and of the deceased owner of
the property. The Ld. ACJ vide order dated 02.08.2024 has also passed ex-parte
junction in favor of accused Soni Gupta against the defendants restraining them from
-- 2 of 4 --
dispossessing Soni Gupta from the said property and same is pending for final verdict
before Ld. ACJ.
It is also stated that as per the inquiry conducted so far it has been
discerned that complainant has filed the present complaint for the recovery of money
paid by him at the time of entering into the agreement but since the proposed
accused had filed a civil suit in respect of the property in question, the complainant
made up his mind to revoke the agreement and is seeking refund of his money.
Further, it is stated that proposed accused did not lure the complainant as there was
no civil suit or any other case pending qua the property in question before the
execution of the agreement and the receipt. It is lastly stated that the dispute pertains
to property transaction, there is no criminal misconduct or intention to deceive.
Financial claim arising from the dispute fall within the scope of civil financial
agreements and that no cognizable offence is made out.
Argument heard. Record perused.
It also becomes imperative to keep in consideration the circumstances,
when an application or prayer u/s 175(3) BNSS 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 175(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 175(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
-- 3 of 4 --
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
persual of the facts as stated in the application and ATR, dispute appears to be
primarily civil in nature and no purpose will be served by launching a criminal
prosecution. Complainant can avail legal remedies before appropriate forum. No
requirement is made out for scientific or field investigation by the police officials.
This court is of the opinion that discretion u/s 175 (3) BNSS 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 225 BNSS. No grounds are made out for exercising discretion u/s 175 (3) BNSS.
Accordingly, the application U/s 175(3) BNSS is dismissed.
Put up for PSE on 06.02.2026.
(Himanshu Sehloth)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
23.09.2025
-- 4 of 4 --