Interim Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 61
Ct. Cases7967/2024
DEVI Vs. DHARMENDER00 /2024 (Mangol Puri)
13.05.2024
Present : Complainant alongwith Sh. D.S.Rana, Ld. Counsel
Matter was listed for clarifications/ orders on application U/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. No clarifications are required.
Vide this Order, I shall dispose of an application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C moved
by the complainant seeking registration of FIR against the proposed accused persons.
The allegations levelled by the complainant are to the extent that the proposed accused
no.1 is the son of complainant and the proposed accused no.2 is the daughter-in-law of
the complainant. The complainant is owner of property no. J-1208, Mangolpuri, Delhi,
where she was residing alongwith the proposed accused persons. The proposed accused
persons however started quarrelling with the complainant and inflicted beatings on her
due to which she filed cases against them between the year 2016 to 2018, in which she
was also given protection and later on the complainant pardoned the proposed accused
persons. Allegedly, on 07.02.2024 the proposed accused persons attacked the
complainant and her daughter and due to the beatings given by them, the complainant
and her daughter sustained injuries. The complainant thereafter, reported the matter to
the police and also filed complaints dated 10.02.2024 and 12.02.2024, but all in vain.
With these allegations, complainant has sought registration of FIR for offences U/s
325/308/506/34 IPC against proposed accused persons.
The preliminary enquiry was conducted by the police and as per ATR filed
by the IO, it was reported that during the inquiry, the allegations levelled by the
complainant were found to be un-substantiated and the inquiry disclosed that the matters
in disputes were civil in nature relating to the property disputes and hence, commission
of no cognizable offence was found.
-- 1 of 3 --
Prior to delving into the merits of the present application, let us briefly
discuss the position of law pertaining to section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
In Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2001 (1) Supreme Court,
Page 129, it was held that;
"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 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. 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 complainant 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 held the complainant. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate even Under
Section 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint
under Chapter XV of the Code”
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Ravindra Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) &
Anr. 2013 VIII AD (Delhi) 403 held that remedy under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is a
discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the word 'may'. The Magistrate is
required to exercise his mind while doing so and pass orders only if he is satisfied that
the information reveals commission of cognizable offence/offences and also about
necessity of Police investigation for digging out of evidence which is neither in
possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of police.
In Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State, 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 625, it was held that;
“It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers to Magistrate to direct the police to
register a case and initiate investigation 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 complainant himself is a possession of evidence to prove his
allegations there should be no need to pass order 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 to help the
-- 2 of 3 --
complainant.”
Now adverting to case in hand, the careful perusal of case record would reflect
that the allegations levelled by the complainant have remained unsubstantiated during
the inquiry. The inquiry into the matter has revealed that the parties are closely related to
each other and on account of some previous disputes between them, the complainant is
stated to have filed other cases against the proposed accused persons previously, in
which the protection order was also granted to her. There is no other prima facie
material produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations levelled by her. In
view of the previous strained relationship and history of disputes between the parties, the
possibility of the present complaint case being motivated against the proposed accused
persons cannot be ruled out. The record is suggestive of the fact the evidence in present
case is not beyond the control and reach of the complainant. Further, no scientific
investigation is required to be conducted by the police nor the custodial interrogation of
the proposed accused persons is necessitated. The allegations levelled by complainant
can be proved by her by placing convincing material on record which is not beyond her
reach and as such the present case does not appear to require any probe by the police. In
view of the above, there exists no occasion to order the registration of the case FIR u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. and accordingly the present application is dismissed.
However, taking the cognizance of the complaint filed u/s 200 Cr.P.C., the
complaint is hereby given an opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence.
Accordingly, list for PSE on 06.09.2024.
(Rishabh Kapoor)
Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (North-West)
Delhi/13.05.2024
-- 3 of 3 --