Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS ISHA SINGH, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-
07, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSH020181132025
42 CT Cases / 1552/2025
Munesh Yadav Vs. Radha
14.08.2026
Present: Sh. Ankur Kumar, Ld. LAC for complainant alongwith complainant.
Put up for orders at 04:00 PM.
(Isha Singh)
JMFC-07/SHD/KKD/14.08.2026
At 4.00 pm
Present : None.
Vide this order, I shall decide the application under Sec. 175(3) BNSS
moved by the complainant.
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 28.08.2024, pro-
posed accused Rishabh (son of the complainant) beat him up, used filthy language
and threaten to kill him. Some time later, proposed accused no. 3 alongwith brother-
in-law of the complainant Ranjan Babu went to the shop of the complainant and tried
to break the lock of the shop. On 02.09.2024 at about 07:00 AM, proposed accused
no. 2 attempted to kill the complainant after setting fire to his bed due to which his
bedsheet got burnt. It is the case of the complainant that the proposed accused per-
sons intend to kill him in order to grab his property as they have threatened him ear-
lier with false implication, in case he fails to transfer property in favour of proposed
accused no. 2. On 23.10.2023, a complaint with similar allegations was preferred be-
fore SHO PS Harsh Vihar, however, to no avail. It is stated that on 04.05.2024, an-
other complaint was preferred before SHO PS Harsh Vihar with similar allegations.
On 05.09.2024, yet another complaint to SHO PS Harsh Vihar and on 07.08.2025, an-
other complaint was preferred before DCP, North-East Delhi, by the complainant. It
Page no. 1 / 4
-- 1 of 4 --
is stated that despite such complaints, no action has ensued against the proposed ac-
cused persons. Accordingly, due to inaction by the police, the complainant has ap-
proached the undersigned for registration of FIR u/s 175(3) BNSS.
ATR was filed on behalf of PS Harsh Vihar to the effect that no cogniz-
able offence is made out in the present case. As part of the enquiry, statements of
complainant’s parents were recorded which reflect that the complainant frequently
creates disturbance at home and he fails to maintain cordial relations with his family
members. The report reflects that the complainant has previously been treated at IH-
BAS Hospital and has a history of intoxication. The report also states that the allega-
tions in the complaint are totally false as proposed accused no. 3 never assaulted the
complainant and Ranjan Babu (brother-in-law of the complainant) has no involve-
ment in the domestic affairs of the complainant’s family. The ATR also reflects that
the complainant has failed to furnish any MLC in support of his allegations and that
the issue is purely matrimonial in nature.
Per Contra Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that
prima facie,
cognizable offences have been committed in the present case and accordingly, he has
prayed that police be directed to register an FIR.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the
complainant and have gone through the record as well as perused the report.
The legal position with respect to use of powers under Section 156(3)
CrPC
[now 175(3) BNSS] has been laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
the case of
M/s. Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2001 IV AD (Delhi), wherein
it was observed,
inter alia, as under :
“It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers to Magistrate to direct
the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this power has to
be exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner.
In those cases where the allegations are not very serious and complaint him-
self is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no
need to pass orders U/s. 156 (3) of the Code. This discretion ought to be ex-
ercised after proper application of mind and only in those cases where the
Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the allegations is such that the
complainant himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence
before the court and interest of justice demand that the police should step in
the help of the complaint.”
Page no. 2 / 4
-- 2 of 4 --
Further, in
Shri Subhkaran Luharuka vs. State ILR (2010) VI DELHI
495, it was held that the term ‘may’ used in the provision empowers the Magistrate to
use discretion, while ordering registration of FIR. It was observed,
inter alia, as un-
der”
“42. Thus, there are pre-requisites to be followed by the complainant before
approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code which is a dis-
cretionary remedy as the provision proceeds with the word “May”. The mag-
istrate 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 necessity of police investigation for digging out of
evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured with-
out the assistance of the police.”
Relying upon
M/s. Skipper Beverages (supra), the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi, in the case of
Vijay Gupta v. Development Credit Bank Ltd., 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 6665, has held as follows:
“14. Thus, the Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct reg-
istration of FIR in each and every case in routine and casual manner. Crimi-
nal law is not expected to be set in motion on mere asking of a party. There
has to be some substance in the complaint filed and it is only if it appears that
the allegations are serious enough and establish the commission of cogniz-
able offence required through investigation by the police, an FIR should be
ordered to be registered. The Magistrate can treat an application under Sec-
tion 156(3) Cr. P.C. as a complaint case, adopt the procedure of the com-
plaint case by recording evidences under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. and
then either proceed under Section 203 Cr. P.C. and dismiss the complaint if
no offence is made out on summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.
P.C. whose complicity is disclosed in the inquiry conducted by it under Sec-
tions 200 and 202 Cr. P.C.”
The main purpose of the investigation is collection of evidences against
the proposed accused persons against whom a criminal complaint has been made. It is
well settled that police investigation is required for collection of such evidence,
which is neither in possession of the complainant nor can be produced by witnesses
on being summoned by the Court, at the instance of the complainant and the matter is
such which calls for investigation by a State agency. This court is of the considered
opinion that evidence, if any, is clearly within the reach of the complainant or can be
produced by witnesses on being summoned by the Court and the complainant is also
Page no. 3 / 4
-- 3 of 4 --
well aware of the identity of the proposed accused. Further, no custodial interrogation
of the alleged accused is necessary. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by
sending the present complaint to the police for investigation. Therefore, the com-
plainant is granted the opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence and to bring rele-
vant material on record against the proposed accused. Moreover, if, during the pre-
summoning evidence, it is found that the police investigation is necessary or desirable
for elucidating the truth, then recourse to section 225 BNSS may be taken for meeting
the ends of justice. Hence, the application u/s 175(3) BNSS is dismissed and disposed
accordingly.
Law is trite that the stage of cognizance, shall come after recording of
statement of the complainant and witnesses, if any, on oath and only thereafter, shall
the issue of giving notice to proposed accused arise. Reliance in this regard is placed
uponCrl. MC No. 1495/2025 titled as Brand Protectors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Kumar,
(2025 SCC Online Del 5046).
Put up for PSE on 22.12.2026.
(Isha Singh)
JMFC-07/SHD/KKD/14.08.2026
Page no. 4 / 4
-- 4 of 4 --