Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 52 Ct. Cases / 5693/2025
DIVYANSHU KAPOOR Vs. BHAWNA DHINGRA AND OTHERS /0
(Rani Bagh)
07.08.2025
Present : Sh. Brij Bhushan and Ms. Kalpana, Ld. counsel for the complainant.
Arguments were heard earlier.
Order on Application u/s 156(3) CrPC [175(3) BNSS]
1. The complainant prays for registration of FIR against the accused persons i.e., his
wife and his in-laws on the ground that they have not allowed him to meet his minor
child and are exposing his minor child to liquor and are posting pictures regarding the
same on social media. It is further submitted that the brother in law of the
complainant i.e., accused no. 5 demanded Rs.50 lakhs from the complainant just to
see the face of the minor child and upon denying it, they threatened to kill the
complainant. The complainant has also narrated that several litigations are going
against him and accused persons with respect to their disturbed married life. It is
further submitted that despite making police complaints, no action was taken.
2. An Action Taken Report (ATR) was also filed in this case as per which allegations are
vague and retaliatory in nature and no cognizable offence is made out.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued forcefully that the complaint outlines
cognizable offences, necessitating the registration of an FIR against the accused. It
was also pointed out that complainant has parallelly approached Child Welfare
Committee as well which has also expressed concerns regarding introduction of the
chile to intoxicate the substances by the accused persons. However, as of now, they
were unaware about the fate of their application made before the CWC. During the
arguments, the complainant also submitted that as of now, he has not filed any case
-- 1 of 2 --
seeking custody of the child and neither is he capable to keep the child in his custody,
as he is having a small job at this point.
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 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. 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 (or 175(3)
BNSS) is dismissed. The complainant may proceed with pre-summoning evidence.
7. Matter be listed for pre-summoning evidence on 19.12.2025.
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/07.08.2025
-- 2 of 2 --