Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. GARIMA JINDAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06,NORTH, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
48 Ct. Cases / 794/2025 INDERPAL SINGH GAMBHIR Vs. Balkar
Singh / ()
13.11.2025
O R D E R
Vide this order, I shall decide the application u/s 175 (3) of
BNSS. The facts of the complaint in brief are that the father of the
complainant was a tenant of accused no. 1 i.e. Balkar Singh in respect of
shop no. 5,6 and 20, Lal Bagh, Delhi, and used to pay rent to Ms. Baljeet
Kaur, who was authorized by accused no. 1, either in cash or through online
modes. It is further averred that after the demise of complainant’s father,
complainant being LR became the tenant of the aforesaid shop. It is further
averred that on 20.09.2024, when the complainant reached his shops, he
found that the locks of the shops were broken and changed by the accused
and all his goods which were lying in the shop were taken away by the
accused and accused no. 2- Sh. Vinay Sapra put his own goods in the said
shop. Thereafter, the complainant made a PCR call and police came at the
spot, however, they refused to register any FIR. Thereafter, complaint was
also made by the complainant before higher authorities, however, no action
was taken thereupon also. Hence, the present complaint was filed.
ATR filed under the signatures of SI Ramjee Singh dated
07.08.2025 wherein he stated that inquiry was conducted and accused
submitted that since the complainant was not using the shop since long, he
himself handed over the keys of the same to accused- Balkar Singh and only
garbage was lying inside the shop which was got cleaned by accused-
Balkar Singh being the head of the Gurudwara. It is further stated therein
that it was found that no lock was broken. It is further stated therein that
complainant in connivance of one Baldev Singh who was having previous
enmity with accused Balkar Singh had filed the present complaint.
Heard. Record perused.
It is admitted that complainant / his father was a tenant in the
shop in question. In view of the above, this court is of the view that the real
-- 1 of 2 --
issue between the parties is primarily civil in nature being tenant- owner
relationship and the present complaint has only been filed by the
complainant just to exert undue pressure on the accused persons and the
complainant by way of present complaint is trying to give it the color of
criminal offence which can not be allowed by this court to serve his vested
interest. In view of the above discussion, prima facie no case is made out
against the accused persons which requires investigation by police to
unearth the truth. Moreover, the facts as alleged by the complainant are
within the knowledge of complainant which can be proved either by himself
or through summoned witnesses who can testify to his allegations against
the accused persons and the application is also accompanied by complaint
u/s 223 of BNSS. Thus, in view of the above, the court is not inclined to use
the discretion vested in the court u/s 175(3) of BNSS in favour of the
applicant/complainant.
Thus, the present application is hereby dismissed.
(Garima Jindal)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-06
North District
Rohini Courts,Delhi
-- 2 of 2 --