Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 57Ct. Cases/1396/2024SUNIL VERMA Vs. SHUBHAS RATHI
21.04.2025
Present: Ld. counsel for the complainant.
Arguments on application u/s 175 (3) BNSS heard.
List for orders at 2 pm.
(Bhujali)
JMFC01/North/Rohini
21.04.2025
At 2:30 pm.
Present: None.
An application u/s 175(3) alongwith a complaint u/s 223 BNSS. 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 175(3), Status report
was summoned from the concerned PS.
ORDER
I have carefully perused the application u/s 1753) BNSS 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 175 (3) BNSS 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 225 BNSS Accordingly with the above observations, application u/s 175(3) BNSS is dismissed.
Put up for consideration on complaint u/s 223 BNSS on 08.07.2025.
(Bhujali)
JMFC01/North/Rohini
21.04.2025
-- 1 of 1 --