Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 30 Ct. Cases / 24977/2026
NISHA GAUR Vs. HARVINDER SINGH /0
(Rani Bagh)
17.09.2026
Present : 	Complainant in person. (she is a practicing Advocate)
EO SI Pooja in person.
Clarifications have been obtained from EO.
EO submits that Vikas and Aman did not join the inquiry neither their
contact details could be traced out.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders at 2.00 PM.
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/17.09.2026
At 2.00 PM.
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S. 175(3) BNSS
Present : 	Complainant in person. (she is a practicing Advocate)
1. This is an application under Section 175(3) BNSS. The grievance of the
complainant is that, despite disclosure of a cognizable offence, the police did
not register an FIR on her complaint submitted to the SHO, PS Rani Bagh,
on 22.06.2026.
2. The crux of the complaint dated 22.06.2026 is that the complainant
purchased a Samsung mobile phone from KFC Enterprises, situated at Rishi
Nagar, Rani Bagh, on 10.05.2026 against a valid bill. At the time of
-- 1 of 5 --
purchase, she was informed that the mobile phone was a genuine and
lawfully marketable device. Thereafter, on 21.05.2026, she received a call
from police officials of Cyber Cell, Gujarat, informing her that the said
mobile phone had allegedly been purchased earlier from Flipkart using a
hacked credit card. It was further conveyed that the mobile phone purchased
in this manner had been sold by the fraudster to the shopkeeper from whom
she ultimately purchased the device.
3. The complainant is, therefore, aggrieved that a mobile phone procured
through unscrupulous means was sold to her with fraudulent intention,
causing her harassment, possible implication in a cyber fraud case in another
State, and monetary loss, as the mobile phone had been rendered unusable.
4. An action taken report was called for in this matter. As per the inquiry
conducted, the chain of purchase and sale of the disputed mobile handset
was verified. It was revealed that KFC Enterprises had purchased the
handset from one Sachin, proprietor of Radhe Shyam Enterprises, situated at
Sector 3, Rohini. Sachin disclosed that he had purchased it from one
Sukhwinder, a freelance mobile dealer, who had, in turn, purchased it from
one Vikas. The handset was accompanied by an online tax invoice bearing
an invoice number, dated 02.05.2026, issued in the name of Aman.
5. Further inquiry revealed that Harvinder, proprietor of KFC Enterprises, sold
the said handset to one Yatin Soni on 10.05.2026. The sale consideration was
paid by Mr. Yatin Soni, whereas the invoice was issued in the name of the
complainant at the request of the purchaser. The shop owner produced the
stock register, ledger, purchase records and tax invoice issued by the shop,
reflecting receipt of the handset in stock and its subsequent sale. The
Ct. Cases / 24977/2026 	NISHA GAUR Vs. HARVINDER SINGH 	Page no. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
documentary records were examined and found consistent with the
transaction.
6. Further, no material evidence came on record to indicate that Harvinder,
proprietor of KFC Enterprises, had prior knowledge or reason to believe that
the handset had originally been procured using a fraudulently hacked credit
card or through any criminal activity. He also submitted a written complaint
against Aman, from whom the chain of transactions originated. He furnished
a written undertaking that, in order to maintain goodwill and market
reputation, he would provide a new handset of the same model to the
complainant if the disputed handset was returned to Gujarat Police or
deposited at PS Rani Bagh.
7. Further inquiry revealed that Gujarat Cyber Cell had already registered a
complaint regarding the alleged fraudulent use of a hacked credit card for
the online purchase. The material collected during inquiry did not disclose
any involvement, dishonest intention, mens rea or prior knowledge on the
part of Harvinder or any other local trader regarding the alleged fraudulent
purchase. The allegation pertained to the original online purchase of the
handset using a fraudulently hacked credit card, which was already under
investigation by Gujarat Police. Accordingly, the ATR concluded that no
action was warranted by PS Rani Bagh in this matter.
8. I have considered the rival arguments as well as the ATR. It is trite that, for
registration of an FIR, the complainant is required to disclose a cognizable
offence of such a nature as requires police investigation. In the present case,
the complainant is aggrieved that a mobile phone was sold to her which had
earlier been procured through criminal activity. The shop owner, in his
Ct. Cases / 24977/2026 	NISHA GAUR Vs. HARVINDER SINGH 	Page no. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
defence, has produced documentary records showing that he dealt with the
mobile phone in the ordinary course of business, issued a proper bill, and
reflected receipt and sale of the mobile phone in his stock registers and other
records.
9. However, what is significant is that the ATR itself reveals that a mobile
phone procured through alleged criminal activity was subsequently
introduced into the open market through a layered chain of persons. It is
apparent that the same has been done with a dishonest intention to cheat the
end user. This aspect of the matter does not require engagement with the
question whether the shopkeeper who sold the mobile phone to the
complainant had criminal or dishonest intention at the time of sale. It,
however, needs to be investigated who are the persons involved in the
criminal conspiracy to facilitate passing off the mobile phone as a genuine
and marketable product.
10. The inquiry traces the chain of purchase back to Vikas; however, it does not
clarify how Vikas obtained the mobile phone from Aman. Further, today the
EO has made a startling submission that Vikas and Aman could not be traced
out during the enquiry. Therefore, the very existence of these individuals is
shrouded in mystery.
11. It appears that this may be the tip of the iceberg, indicating a larger scam
operating in the electronics market across Delhi. If phones fraudulently
purchased in other States are being brought to Delhi, and possibly the
reverse is also occurring, it is the responsibility of the police to investigate
the conspiracy to its full extent. The complaint may be treated as a precursor
Ct. Cases / 24977/2026 	NISHA GAUR Vs. HARVINDER SINGH 	Page no. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
or an indication warranting investigation into a larger crime syndicate
operating in the city.
12. I have also considered that a complaint regarding cyber fraud has already
been registered by Gujarat Cyber Cell. However, that shall not come in the
way of registration of FIR on the complaint filed by the complainant. From
the material brought on record, it appears that Gujarat Cyber Cell is
concerned with hacking of some credit card and its online use. The fact that
a mobile phone purchased in this manner is being sold in open market in
Delhi in general or the complainant in particular is not directly under
investigation before the Gujarat Cyber Cell. That offence has been
committed within the jurisdiction of PS Rani Bagh and they are fully
empowered to investigate the same. Needless to say, the respective
investigating agencies may coordinate with each other to bust the entire
syndicate.
13. Accordingly, I am satisfied that a cognizable offence has been disclosed.
SHO concerned is directed to register an FIR within 10 working days from
today and commence investigation forthwith. Copy of FIR be communicated
to the complainant.
14. The complainant is also directed to cooperate in the investigation in this
matter as may be required by the Delhi or the Gujarat Police.
15. Put up for status of investigation on 24.02.2027.
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
recordsROHINI COURTS DELHI/17.09.2026
Ct. Cases / 24977/2026 	NISHA GAUR Vs. HARVINDER SINGH 	Page no. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --