Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 71 Ct. Cases / 7065/2025
Prem Vs. Suresh Roy /0 ()
27.07.2026
Present: Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Further arguments have been advanced.
Be put up for orders.
(Shagun)
JMFC-06/North-West/RC
Delhi/27.07.2026
AT 4:00 PM.
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, the undersigned shall dispose off the application filed u/s 175(3)
BNSS.
2. In brief, it is the case of the complainant that through her friend Vidya, she came in
contact with Suresh Roy as she was willing to buy a plot and the said Suresh Roy was a
property dealer, who agreed to sold a plot no. 46 out of Kh. no. 31/18 Bhagya Vihar,
Mubarakpur Dabas, Delhi (herein after referred to as “PIQ”). Thereafter, the sale was
finalized for Rs. 11,50,000/- and after executing the certain documents, the PIQ was
transferred to the complainant. It is further alleged by the complainant that she used to
visit the PIQ frequently and even filled sand in the plot and during this time, none of
the neighbours raised any objection and later, one of the neighbors, namely, Gautam
informed the complainant that the PIQ belongs to some other person. Thereafter, the
complainant tried to contact Suresh Roy, however, he was not traceable. Lastly, it is
stated that complaints were made to PS but no action has been taken.
3. ATR has been filed, whereby, the Enquiry officer has reported that the said Suresh Roy
is not traceable and it surfaced from the inquiry from neighbours, namely, Gautam that
the PIQ belong to one Vandana Gutam. The said Vandana Gautam informed the
Contd…….
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
Enquiry Officer that her husband, namely, Rajesh Jaiswal is in the possession of the
said plot since 1997 and they sold the said PIQ to one Rajender Yadav in 2025.
Rajender Yadav was enquired by the IO where he stated that he purchased plot no. 45A
out of Kh. no. 31/18 from Rajesh Jaiswal in the name of his son Sachin Yadav. During
physical inspection of the site, the IO reported that the complainant is claiming the PIQ
as plot no. D-46 and the left side of the PIQ has name plate of D-44 and right side bears
name plate as D-45 and the local residence reported that plot no. D-46 is situated on the
right side of D-45. Lastly, it is reported that the matter is civil in nature and the dispute
has been arisen due to non identification / lack of demarcation of the plots. It is further
reported by the IO that request was sent to SDM Kanjhawala for demarcation of PIQ.
4. I have heard the submissions of the complainant, perused the material available on
record.
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November,
2013 has held:-
“111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a
situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity
for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable
offence is disclosed or not.”
At this juncture what should weigh upon the mind of the Magistrate is the complainant, material
brought on record by the complainant and limited inquiry that has been conducted by the police
on ATR being called by the court and commission of cognizable offence. It has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court held in "Chander Deo Singh V. Prakash Bose & Anr." 1963 AIR 1430 that:
"it is clear from the entire scheme of chapter XVI of the Cr. PC that accused persons does not
come into picture at all till the process is issued. This does not mean that he has precluded from
being present when an inquiry is held by Magistrate. He may remain present either in person or
through ld. Counsel or agent with view to be informed of what is going on but since the very
question for consideration have whether he should be called upon to have accusation, he has no
right to take part in the proceedings nor has a Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit him to do so.
Contd…….
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa[3], the two-Judge Bench had to say this:
"The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several
cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed [(2008) 5 SCC 668] examined the requirement of the
application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and
held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section
156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, ……
The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement
that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as
reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and
hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation
under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of
his views is neither required nor warranted.”
6. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supereme Court of India as discussed above, the undersigned is of the opinion that the
complainant himself cannot gather the evidences as the same may be with proposed
accused / other person. Further, the documents would require to be seized and enquiry
is required to be made from said Suresh Roy, who is stated to be untraceable, therefore,
the undersigned deems it fit to allow the present application, accordingly, SHO
concerned is directed to register FIR on the basis of the complaint u/s 318(4) BNS and
to file compliance report within this court within 20 days from today. The investigation
shall be uninfluenced by sections mentioned in the complaint. Needless to mention that
registration of FIR shall not mean automatic arrest of accused persons. Power of arrest
should be used only when, it is an aid of the investigation. It is also further clarified that
at this stage and no where in this order, it has been mentioned that the FIR be registered
against the certain person. IO is directed to conduct fair investigation and file report
after the conclusion of the same.
7. Now, to come up for compliance report on 17.08.2026.
(Shagun)
JMFC-06/North-West/RC
Delhi/27.07.2026
-- 3 of 3 --