Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases/10899/2024
Lalit Kumar v SHO
19.12.2024
Present : 	Ld Counsel for the complainant.
Arguments were heard earlier.
Order on Application u/s 156(3) CrPC
1. The complainant requests the registration of an FIR against the accused persons on
the ground that he had paid a total amount of Rs 4,75,000 to one Ajit Singh and
Manju Devi for purchasing the flat in question, however, after receiving the
amount they have failed to execute the sale documents in favour of the
complainant. The complainant believes that the accused persons never intended to
sell the property to him and have cheated him. It is also submitted that police
complaints were also made by the complainant, however, no action was taken.
2. An Action Taken Report (ATR) was filed in this case, as per which the accused
had agreed to return the amount to the complainant and Smt Manju Devi had also
returned the amount of Rs 2 lakhs to the complainant which was received by her,
however, the accused Ajit Singh did not return the amount of Rs 2,75,000/-
received by him.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued forcefully that the complaint outlines
cognizable offences, necessitating the registration of an FIR against the accused
persons.
4. It is trite that when considering an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the
court must be convinced that the information suggests the commission of
cognizable offenses and that police investigation is essential for gathering
-- 1 of 2 --
evidence that the complainant cannot independently obtain. Recently, the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi also ruled that a Magistrate cannot direct FIR registration
solely upon the complainant’s request (see Alok Kumar v Harsh Mander,
CRL.M.C. 1463/2020 & CRL.M.A. 5732/2020, decided on 21.07.2023). Further,
the court must remain vigilant against the misuse of criminal law for resolving
civil disputes (see Kunti v State of U.P. (2023) 6 SCC 109).
5. Bearing these principles in mind, and after examining the core allegations and the
Action Taken Report in totality, I find that the complainant can establish his case
without the need for police investigation at this stage.
6. Notably, all relevant facts and evidence appear to be within the complainant’s
knowledge and possession, which he can present during the trial by examining
witnesses and submitting documents. Entire payment to Ajit Singh and Manju
Devi has been made through normal banking channels. Consequently, there is no
need for additional investigation or recovery that requires police assistance at this
point. Should any disputed facts require examination later, Section 202 CrPC (or
225 BNSS) may be utilized. Therefore, the present application under Section
156(3) CrPC is dismissed. The complainant may proceed with pre-summoning
evidence.
7. Matter be listed for pre-summoning evidence on 09.04.2025.
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/19.12.2024
-- 2 of 2 --