Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 5 Ct. Cases / 18124/2024
RAMESH CHAND JINDAL Vs. BIRBAL SINGH /0 ()
22.11.2025
Present: None for the complainant.
Vide this order, the undersigned shall dispose off the application of the
complainant filed u/s 175 (3) BNSS.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant is running PVC Pine
Manufacturing factory and proposed accused no. 1 and 2 in conspiracy with accused no.
3 and 4, offered the complainant that the complainant can purchase PVC Waste at
resonable rates from accused no. 3 and 4 and ask the complainant to give at least Rs.
15,00,000/- with him. On 21.11.2022, accused no. 2 sent accused no. 1 with the
complainant and his younger son to Gujrat, where accused no. 3 and 4 met the
complainant and proposed accused Birbal ask them to PVC waste, where the goods were
shown. Consequent to this, the complainant made to payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the
accused Birbal, who promised to deliver the goods at Delhi and in case of failure, he shall
pay an amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- to the complainant and handed over two cheques as
security. After returning to Delhi, the complainant enquired from accused Birbal
regarding the goods, who said he could not deliver the same and will return the money.
However, he did not return the same. It is stated that complaints were made to the police,
however, no action has been taken by the police.
Report was called from the SHO/IO concerned, wherein it is reported that
the matter is regarding monetary transaction and is civil in nature.
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,
-- 1 of 3 --
reliance is placed on the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court in M/s. 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
-- 2 of 3 --
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 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”.
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 225
BNSS. None of the evidence in the present case is beyond the reach of the complainant.
Accordingly, the present application u/s 175 (3) of 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 her on the oath.
Put up for consideration on complaint of the complainant on 20.04.2026.
Issue notice to alleged accused for NDOH on filing of PF within 15 days
from today in compliance of 223 BNSS.
(Shagun)
JMFC-06/North-West/RC
Delhi/22.11.2025
-- 3 of 3 --