Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No. 83/2024
Bhoori Singh vs Rani Tomar
P.S. Prem Nagar
23.09.2024
Present: Ld counsel for complainant with complainant.
Arguments on application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. heard.
As per the complaint, it is the case of complainant, that
the complainant married alleged Rani Tomar on 16.05.2017 as per
Hindu Rites. It is submitted that soon after marriage, behaviour of
alleged Rani changed and she started ignoring the complainant. It is
alleged that alleged Rani/wife filed a case of Domestic Violence
against the complainant at Madhya Pradesh and Hon’ble court directed
the alleged Rani to join matrimonial home and she came to Delhi on
09.07.2023, however, her bahaviour did not improve. She threatened
to implicate him and his family members in false case. It is alleged that
alleged Rani has illicit relations with other person at Madhya Pradesh.
Complainant is stated to be in possession of audio recordings regarding
threatening and screenshot of chats regarding illicit relations of the
complainant. It is alleged that on 28.07.2023, alleged Rani assaulted
and tried to strangulate the complainant’s sister and mother on petty
issue and she threatened to implicate them in false case. It is also
alleged that on 29.09.2023, family member of alleged Rani came to the
matrimonial house in absence of complainant and took away valuables,
jewellery and other articles. A complaint was made to SHO on
03.10.2023. Again complaint was sent to SHO, ACP and DCP
concerned on 16.12.2023. however, no action was taken. Since the
police did not take appropriate action against the accused persons, the
complainant approached this court along with the present complaint
seeking a direction to be given to police to register an FIR under
appropriate provisions of law.
1
-- 1 of 3 --
ATR was called and received. Perused. As per the ATR, it
is submitted that no cognizable offence is made out and matter is stated
to have been filed as an afterthought as the alleged has already filed a
D V Case against the complainant at Madhya Pradesh.
During arguments, Ld. counsel for complainant reiterated
the facts of the case and stated that the complaint was clearly
disclosing commission of cognizable offence by the accused persons as
alleged in the complaint, and it was the duty of the police to register an
FIR and investigate into the matter.
It is trite that power u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order
registration of FIR has to be exercised judiciously and not in a
mechanical manner. Only when the allegations are grave and
complainant himself is not in a position to collect and produce
evidence before the Court, the court should direct registration of FIR
and initiation of police investigation. The Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, in
M/S Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, (2001) 92 DLT
217, while laying down the circumstances in which the magistrate can
exercise his powers u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of FIR,
held:
“7. It is true that Section 156(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
complaint himself is in possession of evidence to prove his
allegations there should be no need to pass orders under
Section 156(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 complaint himself may not be
in a position to collect and produce evidence before the
Court and interests of justice demand that the police should
step in to help the complaint. The police assistance can be
taken by a Magistrate even under Sec. 202(1) of the Code
after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint
2
-- 2 of 3 --
under Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in
2001 (1) Supreme page 129 titled “Suresh Chand Jain v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.”
Record perused. In the present case, the complainant has
alleged theft, beating, threatening and cheating by accused persons.
However, as per the ATR, no cognizable offence is stated to be made
out and matter is stated to be a matrimonial dispute between the
parties. There is no MLC or PCR call regarding the incident dated
28.07.2023. Complainant had not seen the family members of accused
No. 1 committing theft of valuable articles and jewellery on
29.09.2023. Admittedly, a Domestic Violence case is stated to have
been filed against the complainant at Madhya Pradesh. From the facts
of the case, matter appears to be matrimonial dispute between the
parties and present case appears a counter-blast to the said D V case.
Prima facie, no cognizable offence appears to be made out. Further
complainant is in knowledge of entire facts of the case and also
appears to be in the possession of relevant evidence. Custodial
interrogation of accused persons is not required. Hence, at this stage,
there is no requirement of police intervention; however, after
examination of the complainant, if any police assistance is required,
the Court can direct police investigation u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is
of the view that no ground is made out for this court to exercise
jurisdiction u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Hence, the prayer u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for
registration of FIR is declined. Put up for pre-summoning evidence on
24.04.2025.
(Navdeep Gupta)
JMIC-06, NW, Rohini, Delhi
23.09.2024
3
-- 3 of 3 --