Order 1

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
44TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C.C.No. 515/SW/2018
Vikram Arun Pradhan …. Complainant
V/s.
Yuvraj Verma and 2 Ors. …. Respondent
ORDER BELOW EXH.NO.1
(Passed on 26/11/2025)
Being aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in
charge of Police Station Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai to record the
first information in cognizable offence inter-alia alleging that the
accused No. 1 to 4 in furtherance of the common intention committed
cheating and criminal breach of trust by violating the terms of the
agreement whereby they had aggrieved to give 30% amount out of
the total profit to the complainant regarding the production of
feature film, Urfi. Thus, according to the complainant, the accused
persons committed offence under section 406,420 and 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
2. In the case of Omprakash Ambadkar Vs. the State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2020), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held as under:
“ A comparison of section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita with section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
indicates the prominent changes that have been introduced by the
enactment of BNSS as follows:
a. First, the requirement of making an application to the
Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the Officer in-charge of
Police Station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the
applicant making an application under section 175 (3) is required
to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Police under section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while
making the application to the Magistrate under section 175 (3).
b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such
inquiry as the deems necessary before making an order directing
registration of FIR.
c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submission of
the Officer in-charge of the Police Station as regards the refusal to
register an FIR before issuing any directions under section 175
(3).
4. Having regard to the settled provision of Section 175 (3),
the submission of the concerned police officer is required to be taken
into consideration while making inquiry. In this regard, I am guided by
the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om
Prakash Ambadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra as noted above. In this
citation the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“ Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the
submissions made by concerned police office before
proceeding to issue directions under section 175 (3), BNSS
has affixed greater accountability on the police responsible to
registering FIRs under section 173. Mandating the
Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned
police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his
mind judiciary while considering the both complaint and the
submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the
requirement of passing reasoned order is complied with in a
more effective and comprehensive manner.” (Para No.35)
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case
on hand and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Om Prakash Ambadkar
supra coupled with the settled provisions of
Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, I pass the
following order:
-- 2 of 3 --
3
ORDER
1 Call the say of the Police Station in-charge of the Police
Station, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
2 The Judicial Clerk of this Court is directed to issue notices
to the concerned Police official, Amboli Police Station,
Andheri (W), Mumbai for filing his/her submission in this
regard.
Sd/-
(Sujitkumar C. Tayde)
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
DATE: 26/11/2025. 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --