Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 72 Ct. Cases 1653/2024
Shilpa Gulati Vs. janeneder Gulati
(Model Town)
16.12.2025
Present: Complainant through VC.
The present application has been moved by the complainant u/s 175(3)
BNSS, seeking directions for registration of an FIR and investigation against the
proposed accused namely Janendra Gulati and Suman Gulati.
Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the proposed accused are
husband and wife and are the complainant’s brother-in-law and sister-in-law
respectively. Both parties reside at the same address, i.e., A-12/13, 2nd Floor, Sardar
Nagar, Delhi. The second floor is divided into two portions by a wooden partition
wall. It is alleged that on 25.09.2024 at about 5:15 PM, the complainant’s husband
heard hammering sounds and noticed that the proposed accused were breaking the
wooden wall without permission, allegedly with the intention to forcibly enter the
complainant’s portion of the house and grab the entire property. It is further alleged
that the complainant was threatened with dire consequences.
Action Taken Report (ATR) has been filed under the signatures of ASI
Jagat and duly forwarded by the SHO concerned. As per the ATR, a detailed inquiry
was conducted and it was found that Shri Roshanlal Gulati, father-in-law of the
complainant, is the legal owner of the property bearing no. A-12/13, 2nd Floor,
Sardar Nagar, Delhi. He has four children, out of whom two sons, namely Janendra
Gulati and Ankush Gulati (husband of the complainant), reside in the said property. It
is further stated that the complainant and her husband had resided at the said premises
around two years ago and the second floor was divided into two portions by a
wooden partition wall, with the complainant occupying one side and the proposed
accused Janendra Gulati, Suman Gulati, along with Shri Roshanlal Gulati, occupying
the other side.
With respect to the incident dated 25.09.2024, the inquiry found that the
wooden wall was being broken not with the intention to forcibly enter the
-- 1 of 3 --
..2..
complainant’s residence, but to create an opening for access to a room situated on the
complainant’s side. The said act was carried out on the instructions of Shri Roshanlal
Gulati, the owner of the property, who intended to create a passage due to paucity of
space on the side occupied by him and Janendra Gulati and his family. It was further
revealed that Shri Roshanlal Gulati had requested the complainant to permit access to
one room in her occupation, as the complainant was occupying approximately five
rooms whereas the other side had only two rooms.
The inquiry further concludes that there is no material to substantiate the
allegation of criminal intimidation or threats. The dispute appears to stem from
property-related issues, particularly concerning access and use of space within the
same property.
It is also noted in the ATR that the complainant has already approached
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by way of CRL No. 3456/2024, titled “Shilpa Gulati
vs. State”, which is pending adjudication. The subject matter of the said proceedings
also pertains to possession and use of the property.
Heard. Record perused.
Upon careful consideration of the complaint, ATR, and the material
placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that:
• The identity of the parties is known;
• The dispute is predominantly civil in nature, relating to possession and
access to property;
• The matter is already sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi;
• No scientific or custodial investigation is required;
• The allegations do not disclose commission of any cognisable offence at
this stage.
It also appears that the present complaint has been filed as a counter-
blast and an arm-twisting tactic in an ongoing property dispute between close family
members. In view of the above facts and circumstances, no ground is made out for
exercising discretion under Section 175(3), BNSS. Accordingly, the application u/s
-- 2 of 3 --
..3..
175(3) BNSS stands dismissed. If any police assistance or limited inquiry is found
necessary, the same may be ordered in accordance with law by invoking powers u/s
225 BNSS.
However, the complainant is not without judicial succor. The matter be
put up for PSE on 28.04.2026.
(Himanshu Sehloth)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
16.12.2025
-- 3 of 3 --