Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Dated: 23.07.2025
49
Ct. Cases/1368/2025
HIRAMANI Vs. JYOTI AND OTHERS
23.07.2025
Present: Sh. Balwant Kumar, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
(Through VC)
Be put up for orders at 04:00 pm.
(ABHINAV SINGH)
JMFC-01/NW/Rohini
23	23.07.2025	.07.2025
AT 04:00 PM	AT 04:00 PM
Present:	Present: Sh. Balwant Kumar, Ld. Counsel for complainant.	Sh. Balwant Kumar, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
(Through VC)	(Through VC)
ORDER ON APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 175(3) BNSS
1. An application under Section 175 (3) BNSS was filed by
the complainant for issuance of directions to SHO for
registration of FIR.
2. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the
proposed accused no. 1 is the daughter-in-law of the
complainant and is now residing at her parental house
alongwith her husband (son of the complainant). It is
averred by the complainant that after the death of the
husband of the complainant, proposed accused no. 1 has
been harassing her in order to transfer her property in the
Ct. Cases 1368/2025 HIRAMANI Vs. JYOTI AND OTHERS Page No. 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
Dated: 23.07.2025
name of proposed accused no. 1. It is further averred that
upon refusal of the complainant, proposed accused no. 1
alongwith proposed accused no. 2 to 5, on 10.12.2024
came to the house of the complainant and threatened to set
herself on fire after pouring petrol, if, the complainant
failed to transfer her property (matrimonial home of
proposed accused no. 1) in the name of proposed accused
no. 1. The complainant further averred that proposed
accused no. 1 may also frame the complainant, her
daughters and sons-in-law in false cases. It is further
averred that despite her complaint, the police officials
failed to take any action against proposed accused persons.
3. Action Taken Report was received under the signatures of
HC Sumit Hooda as per which the court was apprised that
the dispute between the parties is of civil nature pertaining
to the matrimonial house of proposed accused no. 1 and
does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence.
4. Arguments have been heard. It was argued on behalf of the
complainant that the FIR be lodged against the proposed
accused persons under the appropriate sections of law.
5. Record has been perused. The arguments advanced are
considered.
6.
In the case of Subhkaran Luharuka and Another Vs. State
(2010), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi laid down the
guidelines for giving directions to police to register case
wherein it was held that it is not necessary that in every
case, where a complaint has been filed U/s. 200 CrPC, the
magistrate should direct police to investigate the crime,
Ct. Cases 1368/2025 HIRAMANI Vs. JYOTI AND OTHERS Page No. 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
Dated: 23.07.2025
merely because an application has also been filed U/s.
156(3) CrPC. Court has to form an opinion as to whether
police investigation in collection of evidence is necessary
or not. It is to be considered as to whether evidence is in
the possession of complainant or can be produced by the
witnesses on being summoned by the court, at the instance
of complainant. Further, before passing any other on an
application U/s. 156 (3) CrPC, magistrate must call for
status report from the police and then form an opinion as
to whether complaint discloses commission of cognizable
offence or not. He should then satisfy himself about the
need of investigation by the police. In addition thereto, he
should also satisfy himself with regard to necessity to
direct police to investigate the matter for collection of
evidence, which is neither in the possession of
complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on
being summoned by the court at the instance of
complainant and the matter is such which calls for
investigation by a State agency.
7. Now in the instant case the point of consideration
hereunder is as to whether in the given circumstances a
direction for lodging of a FIR and investigation into the
matter is required or not. It is important to note that the
identity of the perpetrators of the alleged offence(s) is
already known to the complainant. Further, the CCTV
Footage of the alleged incident is also available with the
complainant. There is no specific point mentioned in the
application upon which ground investigation is required by
Ct. Cases 1368/2025 HIRAMANI Vs. JYOTI AND OTHERS Page No. 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
Dated: 23.07.2025
police officials. The Complainant has not stated as to what
further evidence is required through investigation to prove
her case.
8. Further, the facts and circumstances of the case are such
that an investigation on any technical aspect is not required
in the present case. Even otherwise, the running of the
state machinery has to be justified on material ground.
Moreover, if court is of the opinion that any inquiry or
investigation is necessary, then it can postpone the issue of
process against the accused and inquire itself or direct an
investigation to be made by police officer or appropriate
person under the relevant provisions.
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
does not appear that investigation by police is necessary as
the case of the complainant is completely based on
allegations.
10. Accordingly, an application u/s 175 (3) BNSS made by
the complainant is dismissed however, the cognizance on
the complaint of the complainant is taken.
11.The matter be now listed for PSE on 24.09.2025.
Copy dasti.
(Announced and dictated in the
open Court on 23rd July, 2025)
(ABHINAV SINGH)
JMFC-01/North West/Rohini Courts
23.07.2025
Ct. Cases 1368/2025 HIRAMANI Vs. JYOTI AND OTHERS Page No. 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --