Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Shirniwas Gupta Vs. Mukesh Bansal Page No. 1 of 6
CT. CASES 19119/2025SHRINIWAS VS. MUKESH BANSAL
(AZADPUR METRO)
03.09.2026
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 175(3) BNSS
1. A complaint under Section 223 BNSS along with an
application under Section 175(3) BNSS was filed by the
complainant for issuance of directions to SHO for registration of
FIR.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is
the proprietor of M/s Jyoti Steel Works engaged in the business of
cutting stainless steel (SS) flats into small pieces and had been
providing job work services to Bharat Industries, a partnership firm
dealing in scrap and converting into ingots of steel. The
complainant was having business terms with Mukesh since 2016 on
job basis and developed good relations. It was further stated that in
Jan 2021, alleged Mukesh Bansal approached the complainant to
become a permanent vendor of his firm. The complainant accepted
proposal and started doing work of Bharat Industries. In end of
January 2021, alleged Mukesh Bansal and Harish Sharma with
dishonest intention and pre planned conspiracy insisted the
complainant to apply for GST registration for Jyoti Steel Works in
order to continue receiving job work orders. The entire process of
GST registration, including the submission of documents and
forms, was conducted at the office of Bharat Industries, under the
supervision of Mukesh Bansal and Harish Sharma. The complainant
-- 1 of 6 --
Shirniwas Gupta Vs. Mukesh Bansal Page No. 2 of 6
was not given the opportunity to review the process independently.
It was further stated that as per the provisions of the GST Act, job
workers are required to register under GST if their annual turnover
exceeds the threshold limit, and the principal (Bharat Industries) is
responsible for ensuring compliance. However, the process was
handled in a manner that compromised complainant autonomy and
control over complainant business operations. In July 2021, alleged
Mukesh Bansal and Harish Sharma deceived the complainant,
compelled him to open a current account with HDFC Bank and the
account opening form was signed at the office of Bharat Industries
and one of the employee namely Ajay, accompanied the
complainant to the bank for submitting the account opening form
and Rs.1 Lac was deposited in the bank account. The complainant
later discovered that in the net banking, mobile, and email details
registered with the bank, Mukesh Bansal's contact information was
provided instead of his details as a result of which, alleged Mukesh
Bansal started operating the current account of Jyoti Steel Works
without the consent or knowledge of the complainant. It was further
stated that on or around 21st December 2021, the alleged Mukesh
Bansal and Harish Sharma approached the complainant and
requested a loan of 20 lacs, citing urgent financial need and the	₹
alleged persons promised him to return the amount along with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Further, the complainant
acting upon the assurance arranged the amount and gave Rs.
18,35,000/- to alleged Mukesh Bansal in cash. It was further stated
that in April 2022, the complainant received a sum of 11,52,000	₹
from M/s. Ganpati Baba Steel on account of a previous loan.
Alleged Mukesh Bansal and Harish Sharma again took this entire
amount from the complainant on the same agreed interest rate of
-- 2 of 6 --
Shirniwas Gupta Vs. Mukesh Bansal Page No. 3 of 6
18% per annum, assuring that the accused would repay it without
delay. During the period December 2021 to September 2022, the
complainant continued performing job work and an amount of Rs.
2,53,846/- was also pending towards the job work. It was further
stated that the alleged paid interest amounts on the loans till
November 2024, but from December 2024, the alleged started
avoiding repayment. Whenever complainant asked for the return of
principal money and dues, the alleged kept giving excuses. The
complainant upon the assurance of Vinayak also job work of
Salasar steels in which Vinayak was a partner and Rs. 8,06,300/- is
outstanding towards Salasar Steels. It was further stated that
Vinayak gave assurance to the complainant that the accused will
made the outstanding payment of Rs. 8,06,300/- with the payment
from Bharat Industries as the accused is the partner of Bharat
Industries. He further stated that he had repeatedly asked the
accused to return the total principal amount long with the interest
accrued, however, the accused had failed to return a single rupee
and has dishonestly misappropriated the said amount for his
personal use. It was stated that the alleged persons made false
representations from the beginning with the malicious intention of
cheating and misleading the complainant to part with large sums of
money. Complainant had given a written complaint to the S.H.O.
and also to concerned DCP, however, the police officials did not
take any action against the accused persons.
3. In the present case, the status report was called, which
was duly filed. The said report is considered. In the report, it is
mentioned thatthe complainant was called and necessary details
were sought from him regarding agreement and alleged transfers in
-- 3 of 6 --
Shirniwas Gupta Vs. Mukesh Bansal Page No. 4 of 6
compliance of which the complainant provided some documents
and records relating to the job work performed by Jyoti Steel Works
for Bharat Industries and Salasar Steel. However, regarding the
alleged loans of 18,35,000/- and 11,52,000/-, the complainant	₹ ₹
failed to provide any written agreement or payment proof, stating
that the amounts were given in cash on the basis of mutual trust and
long-standing business relations at that time. During the course of
enquiry, notices were served at the addresses of the alleged persons.
However, none of them appeared nor did they send any
representative in connection with the enquiry. In conclusion, it is
stated that no cognizable offence has been made out as the
complainant had failed to provide any specific or concrete details
establishing the accused persons cheated the complainant.
4. Arguments were heard. Record perused and
considered.
5. In the case Subhkaran Luharuka and Another Vs. State
(2010), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi laid down the guidelines for
giving directions to police to register case wherein it was held that
it
is not necessary that in every case, where a complaint has been filed
U/s. 200 CrPC, the magistrate should direct police to investigate the
crime, merely because an application has also been filed U/s. 156(3)
CrPC. Court has to form an opinion as to whether police
investigation in collection of evidence is necessary or not. It is to
be considered as to whether evidence is in the possession of
complainant or can be produced by the witnesses on being
summoned by the court, at the instance of complainant. Further,
before passing any order on an application U/s. 156 (3) CrPC,
-- 4 of 6 --
Shirniwas Gupta Vs. Mukesh Bansal Page No. 5 of 6
magistrate must call for status report from the police and then form
an opinion as to whether complaint discloses commission of
cognizable offence or not. He should then satisfy himself about the
need of investigation by the police. In addition thereto, he should
also satisfy himself with regard to necessity to direct police to
investigate the matter for collection of evidence, which is neither in
the possession of complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses
on being summoned by the court at the instance of complainant and
the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency.
6. It is well settled that the Magistrate is not bound to
direct registration of FIR in every case. The power is discretionary
and is to be exercised where:
 cognizable offence is clearly disclosed, and
 police investigation is necessary for collection of evidence
beyond the reach of the complainant.
7. In the present case, the complainant has not pointed
out any material evidence which is beyond his reach and which
necessarily requires collection by the investigating agency. The
identity of the alleged accused persons is also known to the
complainant, and the complainant can lead evidence in support of
the allegations and summon the relevant records, if required.
8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances;
it appears that investigation by the police is not necessary at this
stage, as the complainant has not shown that any material evidence
is beyond his reach. Accordingly, application U/s. 175 (3) BNSS
-- 5 of 6 --
Shirniwas Gupta Vs. Mukesh Bansal Page No. 6 of 6
filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, complainant is at
liberty to lead PSE in support of his complaint under Section 223
BNSS. If court is of the opinion that any inquiry or investigation is
necessary, then it can postpone the issue of process against the
accused and inquire itself or direct an investigation to be made by
police officer or appropriate person U/s. 225 BNSS.
9. The matter be now listed for PSE on 14.09.2026.
Complainant is directed to furnish list of witnesses within 7 days
from now and to file PF for summoning them as per rules.
(UPASANA SATIJA)
CJM (North-West)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
03.09.2026
-- 6 of 6 --