Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases No. 21572/2024 SONU VERMA Vs. S H O Page No. 1/5
47 Ct. Cases / 21572/2024 SONU VERMA Vs. S H O PS North
Rohini /0 (North Rohini)
14.11.2025
Present: Sh. Sachin and Sh. Avdhesh Muniwala, Ld.
Counsels for complainant with complainant.
Arguments on the application heard.
Be put up for orders at 1:00PM.
(EBBANI AGGARWAL)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03
NW/Rohini, Delhi/14.11.2025
At 01:00 PM
Present: Sh. Sachin and Sh. Avdhesh Muniwala, Ld.
Counsels for complainant with complainant.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, this Court shall dispose of an application
filed by the applicant/complainant under Section 175(3) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter re-
ferred to as “BNSS”).
2. Brief facts as alleged in the application are that applicant
got married to alleged accused no. 2 Puja Verma on
17.04.2019 as per Hindu customs and ceremonies and
thereafter on 15.06.2024 applicant had caught alleged ac-
cused no. 2 Puja Verma speaking to alleaged accused no.3
Mohit, however, alleged accused no.2 Puja Verma had as-
sured applicant that she will not speak to alleged accused
no. 3 Mohit again.
-- 1 of 5 --
Ct. Cases No. 21572/2024 SONU VERMA Vs. S H O Page No. 2/5
3. It has further been alleged in the application that despite
the assurance, on 05.07.2024, applicant again caught al-
leged accused no.2 Puja Verma while she was speaking to
alleged accused no. 3 Mohit and on the same day, alleged
accused no.3 Mohit threatened to kill the applicant on a
phone call.
4. It has further been alleged in the application that alleged
accused no. 2 Puja Verma left the house on 16.07.2024 for
which applicant had lodged a complaint at PS North Ro-
hini vide GD No. 104-A. It has further been alleged in the
application that alleged accused no.2 Puja Verma has sol-
emnized a second marriage with alleged accused no.3 Mo-
hit on 18.07.2024 without taking any divorce from the ap-
plicant.
5. Action Taken Report (“ATR”) was called from the con-
cerned SHO wherein it has been stated that there is a mat-
rimonial dispute which is on going between the applicant
and alleged accused no.2 Puja Verma in Bagpat, UP.
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has argued that
prima facie,
cognizable offences have been made out in the present
case and the police is required to register an FIR and inves-
tigate the matter. Ld. Counsel for applicant has further ar-
gued that in the complaint made to concerned SHO appli-
cant has also made allegations regarding theft of cash and
jewelry articles and mobile phone.
7. The IO has further reiterated the stand taken by him in the
ATR.
-- 2 of 5 --
Ct. Cases No. 21572/2024 SONU VERMA Vs. S H O Page No. 3/5
8. Arguments heard, record perused and considered.
9. Position of law regarding an application filed under Sec-
tion 175(3) of BNSS is well settled and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has laid down the the principles
which a Magistrate should keep in my while dealing with
such an application in the case of
Om Prakash Ambadkar
vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2025 INSC 139,
wherein the following has been held:
“24.Thus, there are prerequisites to be followed
by the complainant before approaching the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
which is a discretionary remedy as the provision
proceeds with the word ‘may’. The Magistrate is
required to exercise his mind while doing so. He
should pass orders only if he is satisfied that the
information reveals commission of cognizable
offences and also about the necessity of police
investigation for digging out of evidence neither
in possession of the complainant nor can be
procured without the assistance of the police. It
is, thus, not necessary that in every case where a
complaint has been filed under Section 200 of the
Cr.P.C. the Magistrate should direct the Police to
investigate the crime merely because an
application has also been filed under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. even though the evidence to
be led by the complainant is in his possession or
can be produced by summoning witnesses, with
the assistance of the court or otherwise. The issue
of jurisdiction also becomes important at that
stage and cannot be ignored.
…………
29.Section 175 of the BNSS corresponds to
Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) of
Section 175 of the BNSS is in pari materia with
sub-section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C. except for the
proviso which empowers the Superintendent of
Police to direct the Deputy Superintendent of
Police to investigate a case if the nature or gravity
of the case so requires. Sub-section (2) of Section
175 the BNSS is identical to Section 156(2) of
the Cr.P.C. Section 175(3) of the BNSS
-- 3 of 5 --
Ct. Cases No. 21572/2024 SONU VERMA Vs. S H O Page No. 4/5
empowers any Magistrate who is empowered to
take cognizance under Section 210 to order
investigation in accordance with Section 175(1)
and to this extent is in pari materia with Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, unlike Section 156(3)
of the Cr.P.C., any Magistrate, before ordering
investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS,
is required to:
a. Consider the application, supported by an
affidavit, made by the complainant to the
Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of
the BNSS;
b. Conduct such inquiry as he thinks necessary;
and
c. Consider the submissions made by the police
officer”
10.The position of law which emerges is that before an
application under Section 175(3) of BNSS is filed before a
Magistrate, the applicant/complainant should have sent a
complaint to the concerned SHO and DCP and the
application should be accompanied with an affidavit sworn
by the applicant. Further, power under Section 175(3) of
BNSS is a discretionary one and should not be exercised
mechanically. The facts of the application must disclose
commission of some cognizable offence, the allegations
are of such a nature that some investigation is required by
the police and applicant is not in possession of evidence in
support of the allegations and it is only in such
circumstances that the application under Section 175(3) of
BNSS be allowed.
11.Coming to the case at hand, after perusal of the complaint
and hearing the arguments advanced, this Court is of the
opinion that entire evidence is either in possession of
applicant or the applicant can get the same summoned
-- 4 of 5 --
Ct. Cases No. 21572/2024 SONU VERMA Vs. S H O Page No. 5/5
through process of this Court and nothing new is required
to be collected for which field investigation or assistance
of police agency is required. Further, even the identity of
alleged accused persons is known to applicant and has
been mentioned in the application itself. Besides, if after
examination of applicant/complainant, any police
assistance is required, then recourse to Section 225 of
BNSS can be taken.
12.Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, no ground is made out to exercise jurisdiction
under Section 175(3) of BNSS and the application is
hereby dismissed.
13.Perusal shows that a complainant under Section 223 of
BNSS has also been filed by the complainant.
14.Put up for PSE on 08.04.2026.
(EBBANI AGGARWAL)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03
NW/Rohini, Delhi/14.11.2025
-- 5 of 5 --