Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases / 11884/2024
KISHORI LAL Vs. SONU
13.05.2025
Present: Ld. Counsel for complainant.
1. Arguments on application u/s 175(3) BNSS have already been heard.
2. As per the complaint, it is the case of complainant, that the alleged namely
Sonu @ Pawan Kumar runs his business by the name of Om properties in
the same locality as that of the complainant, that the complainant knows the
alleged for the past 4 years, that few years back the alleged person helped
the complainant to sell one or 2 flats as a broker, but he had a habit of
consuming liquor throughout the day and for the same reason, the
complainant refused to work with him. It is further averred that since that
day the alleged person used to threaten the complainant for ending his life,
that on 25th April 2024, at around 12:09 p.m., the complainant received a
call on his mobile from mobile number 9310774652" and the caller
informed him that he is Sonu@ Pawan Kumar and informed him that he
will kill the complainant today, the complainant ignored his call but he
again called on his mobile phone from mobile numbers "72010192229"
and "9911545844" belonging to alleged Sonu and he threatened the
complainant to finish him and his family. It is further averred that the
complainant stopped picking his calls, after which in a white colour car
bearing the last digits of the car as 2333, he visited the house of the
complainant along with 3-4 other persons and started shouting his name in
an effort to kill him, the complainant's neighbours informed him that he
was fortunate to not being present at his house at that time as the alleged
-- 1 of 5 --
person had all the passion to kill him that day. It is further averred that the
alleged person did not stop there as the complainant is member of a group
on WhatsApp where all the property dealers of Vijay Vihar are members,
alleged started sending absurd audio notes defaming the complainant and
threatened the complaint to either give him an amount of Rs 10,00,000 or
he will finish the complainant and his family, and he also informed that he
has several criminal cases to his name, and he will not be affected with
another criminal case to his name. Complainant gave a written complaint to
SHO and DCP concerned but action was not taken. Since the police did not
take appropriate action against the alleged persons, the complainant
approached this court along with the present complaint seeking a direction
to be given to police to register an FIR under appropriate provisions of law.
3. ATR was called and received. Perused. As per the ATR, during the course
of enquiry, the complainant Sh. Kishori Lal stated that he had business
terms with alleged Pawan Kumar @ Sonu and corroborated the contents of
complaints filed by him, that the contents of some audio clips were narrated
in which alleged Pawan Kumar @ Sonu is threatening the complainant
with filthy language but none of the audio clip contained voice of demand
of Rs. 10 Lakh, that the complainant was requested to provide the soft copy
of audio clips in a pen drive but he has not provided the same till date. It is
further submitted that the alleged Pawan Kumar @ Sonu was not found
residing at the address provided by the complainant, hence he was
contacted on his Te Nos./Whatsapp Nos. 9310174652 & 7210192229 to
join the enquiry in connection with the complaints filed by the complainant
but he refused to join the same. Also, notices to join enquiry into the matter
were also served to alleged Pawan Kumar @ Sonu on his WhatsApp
number and email id, but he did not join the enquiry. it is further submitted
that as per the enquiry conducted, offence U/s 506 IPC was made out.
-- 2 of 5 --
Hence, a Non Cognizable Report No. 45/2024 dated 05.10.2024 U/s 506
IPC has been registered in this police station and copy of the same has been
provided to complainant.
4. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant reiterated the facts of the
case and stated that the complaint was clearly disclosing commission of
cognizable offence by the alleged person, as alleged in the complaint, and it
was the duty of the police to register an FIR and investigate into the matter.
He had also filed a pen drive stated to be containing the audio notes/voice
recordings of the alleged person stating that he can be heard abusing,
threatening and making demands of Rs 10,00,000/- from the complainant.
It was further submitted that an NCR u/s 506 IPC was registered, but the
contents are of section 506 Part II IPC.
5. It is trite that power u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of FIR has to be
exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner. Only when the
allegations are grave and complainant himself is not in a position to collect
and produce evidence before the Court, the court should direct registration
of FIR and initiation of police investigation. The Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi, in
M/S Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, (2001) 92 DLT 217,
while laying down the circumstances in which the magistrate can exercise
his powers u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of FIR, held:
“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 complaint
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
complaint himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence
-- 3 of 5 --
before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step in
to help the complaint. The police assistance can be taken by a Magistrate
even under Sec. 202(1) of the Code after taking cognizance and proceeding
with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in
2001 (1) Supreme page 129 titled “Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors.”
6. Record perused. As per the ATR, it is submitted that in the voice
recordings provided by the complainant, alleged Pawan Kumar @ Sonu
is threatening the complainant with filthy language but none of the
audio clips contained voice of demand of Rs. 10 Lakh, that the
complainant was requested to provide the soft copy of audio clips in a
pen drive but he has not provided the same till date. It is further
submitted that as per the enquiry conducted, offence U/s 506 IPC was
made out and therefore a Non Cognizable Report No. 45/2024 dated
05.10.2024 U/s 506 IPC has been registered. Ld counsel for
complainant had also filed a pen drive before the Court stated to be
containing the audio clips/voice recordings of the alleged person,
wherein the alleged person can be heard threatening to kill the
complainant and his family, using filthy language against him and
abusing him. However, as stated in the ATR, none of the audio clips
contained voice of demand of Rs. 10 Lakh. Therefore, prima facie case
u/s 506 Part II IPC is made out, which is non-cognizable in nature and
as per the ATR, an U/S 506 IPC has already been registered. Prima
facie, no cognizable offence appears to be made out. Hence, there does
not arise any occasion for this Court to exercise power u/s 175 (3)
BNSS. Further, after examination of the complainant, if any police
assistance is required, the Court can direct police investigation u/s 223
(1) BNSS.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the view
that no ground is made out for this court to exercise jurisdiction u/s 175
-- 4 of 5 --
(3) BNSS. Hence, the prayer u/s 175 (3) BNSS for registration of FIR is
declined. Put up for pre-summoning evidence on 10.11.2025.
(Nidhi Chitkara)
JM1stC-06/North-West/RC/Delhi/13.05.2025
-- 5 of 5 --