Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 58 Ct. Cases 913/2024
MUNSHI LAL Vs. ASHOK 00/2024 (AMAN VIHAR)
13.10.2025
Present: None for the complainant.
Vide this order, the undersigned shall dispose off the application of the
complainant filed u/s 175 (3) BNSS.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is lawful owner of property
bearing no. B-1/56, Gali No. 3, Ramesh Enclave, Kirari, Delhi and proposed accused no. 1
and 2 in collusion with accused no. 3 and 4 are trying to dispossess the complainant and
also threatened him to vacate the property. It is further alleged that they have executed
certain forged and fabricated documents and sold the land to some land mafia. It is also
alleged that the accused persons have given physical assault to the complainant. It is stated
that on 06.11.2023, at about 1:00 PM, the accused persons in collusion with each other
pressurize the complainant to transfer his property and upon his refusal, gave beatings to
him and attacked upon the head of the complainant with weapon and complainant received
grievous injuries. It is also alleged that the accused persons committed a theft of Rs.
18,000/-, two LPG gas cylinders from the house of the complainant as well as property
documents. It is further stated that the complainant has the apprehension that the accused
persons may grab the property / dispossess him / hand over the same to the land mafia. It is
stated that complaints were made to the police, however, no action has been taken by the
police.
Report was called from the SHO/IO concerned, wherein it is reported that
the complainant alleged that his son Ashok, Rajender, daughter in law, namely, Kanchan
and Sangeeta are not vacating his home, nor giving him any food or money for
maintenance. Lastly, it is reported that it is a domestic matter.
It is settled law that U/s 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate
has power to direct the police to register a case and investigate the matter, but this power is
-- 1 of 3 --
to be exercised judiciously and not in a technical manner. In the matters where the
complainant has in his possession all the evidence required to prove his allegations, there
should be no need to pass an order U/s 156 Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard,
reliance is placed on the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court in M/s. SKIPPER
BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE, Cited as 2001 IV AD (Delhi), wherein it has been
held as under:
“It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers the Magistrate to direct
the police to register a case and initiate investigation but his 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 156 (3) of the Code. This 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 position to collect and produce evidence
before the court and interest of justice demand that the police should step in the
help the complainant”.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down guidelines to decide applications u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. in a case titled as
Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and
Others (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2012 ) DOD. 19.03.15, wherein it was
held:-
“
26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants
application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police
taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim
cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved
citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It
protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their
fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by
the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well
advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations.
This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to
say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without
taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart,
it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who
are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under
the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But
-- 2 of 3 --
it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is
determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be
prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition
under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the
application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant
for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported
by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious
and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an
affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance
with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate
under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of
the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the
nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of
cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes,
commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases
where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are
illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate
would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR”.
From the facts of the case, the undersigned is of the opinion that the
assistance of investigating agency is not required in the present case for the collection of
evidence. The facts and circumstances of the present case are such that the complainant is
in possession of entire evidence, further he can summon the witnesses. Thus it does not
appear to be a case where the police assistance is required for the purpose of collection of
evidence. Further if in future any need would arise police assistance can be taken U/s 202
Cr.P.C. None of the evidence in the present case is beyond the reach of the complainant.
Accordingly, the present application u/s 175 (3) of BNSS is dismissed. In the facts of the
present case, the undersigned deem it appropriate that the complainant be directed to prove
the allegations made by her on the oath.
Put up for consideration on complaint of the complainant on 18.03.2026.
Issue notice to alleged accused for NDOH on filing of PF within 10 days from
today in compliance of 223 BNSS.
(Shagun)
JM1stC-06/North-West/RC/Delhi/13.10.2025
-- 3 of 3 --