Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 21884/2024
SURIENDER VS. PREET BAL & ORS.
MAURYA ENCLAVE
20.03.2025
Present : 	None for complainant.
Arguments were heard earlier.
Order on Application u/s 175(3) BNSS
1. As per the initial complaint given by the complainant to SHO PS Pitampura,
Delhi, she requested for registration of an FIR against the accused persons
i.e her son and daughter in law on the ground that she is the owner of the
property in question but her son had given her floor on rent without her
permission. She had locked the floor but they had broken the locks and
entered the home and now her son was threatening her and abusing her.
Police complaints were made, however, no action was taken.
2. An Action Taken Report (ATR) was filed in this case as per which during the
inquiry, the complainant provided a photocopy of the property documents,
while the proposed accused Preet Bal, in his response, asserted that the
property was legally his as per a family settlement and a registered will
dated 23.05.2018, executed by the complainant in his favor. The will was
witnessed by the complainant’s daughter, Ishika Chhabra, and her husband,
Pankaj Chhabra. Preet Bal also claims that another property was already
given to Ishika, but she and her husband are now trying to take over the
disputed property. He has filed a civil suit (CS SCJ/1090/2024) in Rohini
Court. The complainant and witnesses acknowledge the existence of the
will, but the complainant now wishes to revoke it due to family issues. The
-- 1 of 3 --
inquiry concluded that the matter is a family property dispute, with no
cognizable offense established.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued forcefully that the complaint
outlines cognizable offences, necessitating the registration of an FIR against
the accused persons. He also submitted that the will executed by the
complainant was mot valid during her lifetime and the complainant was at
liberty to revoke the same at any point of time.
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 do not find this to be a fit case for
registration of FIR. Although reliance by police on the will executed by the
complainant does appear to be misconceived, however, 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
trial by examining witnesses and submitting documents. Consequently, there
-- 2 of 3 --
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 175(3) BNSS is dismissed. The complainant may
proceed with pre-summoning evidence.
7. Matter be listed for pre-summoning evidence on 31.07.2025.
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/20.03.2025
-- 3 of 3 --