Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 76Ct. Cases/21208/2024
Laxmi Devi Vs. Anjali Garg
(Maurya Enclave)
21.08.2025
Present : 	None for complainant
Arguments were heard earlier.
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S. 175(3) BNSS : 156(3) CRPC
1. The complainant requests the registration of an FIR against the accused
persons on the ground that accused no. 1 with the consent of accused no. 2
entered into an agreement to sell with complainant qua property bearing no.
1884/139, UG Floor, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi, area admeasuring 107
Sq.Meter without roof with one car parking for a total consideration of Rs.
1,05,00,000/- and complainant issued a cheque bearing no. 119869, dt.
09.11.2023, for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs in favour of accused no. 1 and Rs.
2 lakhs was given in cash in the presence of Girish Kumar and
Radheyshyam Aggarwal. She further deposed that on the same day, she also
handed over Rs.1.50 lakhs to accused persons at their request and accused
no.1 gave a cancelled cheque to the complainant, as Rs.2.50 lakhs were to be
transferred to accused persons through online mode. However, when the
complainant requested the accused persons to provide the chain of
documents, they did not provide the same and therefore, the complainant did
not transfer the balance amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to accused persons. It is
further submitted that when she demanded back her money from accused
persons and also asked them not to deposit the abovesaid cheque of Rs 4
lakhs, accused persons did not return her money and presented the abovesaid
cheque of complainant for encashment however, the same could not be
-- 1 of 3 --
encashed due to the reason ‘signatures differ’. It is further submitted that
despite making police complaints, no action was taken.
2. ATR was filed in this matter and as per the same, complainant only paid
Rs.2 lakhs in cash to the accused persons and failed to pay the remaining
amount therefore, as per the terms of agreement, accused forfeited the
amount paid by the complainant. It is further submitted that the matter is
civil in nature.
3. The complainant has 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
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 her 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 she can present during the
-- 2 of 3 --
trial by examining witnesses and submitting documents. The identity of the
accused persons is also well known. 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 20.01.2026.
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/21.08.2025
-- 3 of 3 --