The power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C should be exercised judiciously, and a police investigation is not necessary when the complainant is in possession of evidence to prove the allegations.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by learned MM in C.C No.1625/1 whereby the request of the petitioner to refer the matter for investigation to the police was declined and the petitioner/complainant was directed to lead pre-summoning evidence.

2. In brief, the facts as mentioned in the petition are that the complainant is a social worker carrying on many activities in general public interest. He came to know that one Smt.Manju Tyagi, W/o Shri Devinder Tyagi, R/o House No.3/20, Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 & her accomplice Chetanya Bharti, S/o Shri Chander Bharti, R/o 16/20, Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 are trying to grab the Tibia College Property bearing House No.16/20, Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 illegally on the basis of false and fabricated documents like general power of attorney, affidavits and indemnity bond, which have been executed by them with intend to create the title as owner of the said property. The complainant also came to know both of them have also used the same in the office of BSES as well as Delhi Jal Board at the time of taking the connection. The photocopies of said general power of attorney, affidavits and indemnity bond were enclosed with the complaint alleging that some other people were also involved who helped them in these illegal activities.

3. The matter was reported to the SHO, P.S. D.B.G. Road vide complaint dated 14.04.2009 but due to inaction on the part of the SHO concerned, he was constrained to file criminal complaint no.1625/1 along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to get the matter investigated. However, the I.O. in connivance with the accused persons was pressurizing him to withdraw this complaint and if FIR is not registered, a wrong message would be sent to the society. The documentary evidence prima facie shows the offence committed by the accused persons having committed the offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/120B IPC.

4. Vide impugned order, after considering the facts of the complaint, learned Trial Court considered the case law on the subject i.e. M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State reported as 2001 VI AD(Delhi) and Gulab Chand Upadhaya vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2002 Crl. L. J. 2907, Allahabad High Court where it was held that where accused and his address is known to the complainant, the evidence of the witnesses are also known to him and it is not a case where any other material evidence is required to be collected and can be preserved, in such a case no investigation was required by the police for launching a successful prosecution.

5. In the complaint filed by the petitioner also, learned MM was of the view that all the facts and circumstances are within the knowledge of the complainant. Learned MM formed the opinion that there was no ground for directing the police to investigate the matter as there was nothing for which the police assistance was necessary to be called for. Thus complainant was called upon to lead pre-summoning evidence.

6. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted by Shri Sudershan Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is a public spirited person and has every right to inform the SHO and the Court about the commission of a cognizable offence by the accused persons & thereafter it is for the investigating agency to conduct an inquiry, investigate the matter and proceed in accordance with law. It has been submitted that in this case also forgery has been committed by making documents like general power of attorney, affidavits and indemnity bond to grab the government property and matter is required to be investigated by the police as documents are not in the possession of the complainant. Not only that during the proceeding dated 21.03.2012, he submitted before the Court why the police investigation was required and the grounds have been incorporated in para 7 of the order as un