Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 49 Ct. Cases / 10219/2024
Devender Vs. Raj Kumar Bansal /0 (Prem Nagar)
19.01.2026
Present: None for the complainant.
1. Vide this order, the undersigned shall dispose off the application of the complainant
filed u/s 175 (3) BNSS.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant and proposed accused entered into one
security agreement on 08.04.2024 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- for the same. It is further stated by the complainant that the proposed accused
is pressurizing the complainant to vacate the property and on 05.07.2024 at 11:39 PM,
the proposed accused threatened the complainant that he will break the locks of the shop
and take his goods. It is further stated that on 04.07.2024, the proposed accused abused
the complainant and threatened to kill him and tried to forcefully throw out the
complainant from the shop. It is stated that complaints were made to the police,
however, no action has been taken by the police.
3. ATR was called from the SHO/IO concerned, wherein it is reported that a PCR call was
received on 06.07.2024 from the complainant stating that
“caller bol rha hai ki makan
malik room khali karne k liye bol rha hai or jhagda or tod fod kar raha hai”. It is further
stated that no footage qua the incident was found and no mention qua any theft was
made at that time. It is further stated that the matter pertains to money dispute.
4. 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 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.
-- 1 of 3 --
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
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
-- 2 of 3 --
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”.
5. 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) 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 him on the oath.
6. Put up for consideration on complaint of the complainant on 02.07.2026.
7. Issue notice to proposed accused for NDOH on filing of PF within 15 days from today.
(Shagun)
JMFC-06/North-West/RC
Delhi/19.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --