The magistrate has the discretion to decide whether a complaint requires field investigation or scientific evidence, and the petitioner's remedies included approaching the Superintendent of Police or filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

Pratibha Rani, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the learned M.M., Delhi in Complaint Case No.56/1/2011 titled Dilshad vs. S.R.Sundaram and Ors. whereby application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court and directions were given to the petitioner to lead pre-summoning evidence. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2012 (mentioned in the petition as 04.12.2013) passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi affirming the order of learned M.M. Prayer made in the present petition is for issuance of direction to the concerned authorities to register FIR on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner titled as Dilshad vs. S.R.Sundaram & others and take appropriate legal action against the respondents i.e. (1) Mr.S.R.Sundaram, I.P.S. (under training) posted at North-East District, Delhi, (2) Constable Ram Kumar posted with respondent No.1 S.R.Sundaram, (3) Narender Singh Rana, SHO, P.S. Nand Nagri, Delhi. State has been impleaded as respondent No.4 in this petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of commercial vehicles i.e. EICHER bearing No.DL-1PG-6452 & DL-1LP-3052 and he has already paid the road tax and parking tax to the concerned authorities for his above said both vehicles.

3. The respondents No.1 & 2 and their associates used to demand bribe from the petitioner for parking his vehicles on the corner of the road. On refusal of the petitioner to pay the bribe, respondent No.2 harassed and humiliated the petitioner extending threat that his vehicles would be taken away.

4. As per the complaint filed before the learned M.M, in the night of 14.06.2011 at about 8:15 p.m, the petitioner parked his both the vehicles at corner of the road and his father was sitting there to guard the vehicles. The petitioner had gone to nearby Mosque for Namaz. At that time, respondents No.1 & 2 along with their associates came there and enquired about the owner of the vehicle. When father of the petitioner informed that he is father of the owner of the two vehicles, respondent No.1 asked the respondent No.2 and other associates “Isne Mahina Diya Ya Nahin Diya”. Father of the petitioner opposed this illegal demand resulting into damage being caused to the vehicle by respondents No.1 to 3 with iron rods, lathi and bricks etc. Father of the petitioner was also pushed and humiliated and when public persons gathered there and petitioner also returned after Namaz, he also opposed the illegal acts of respondents No.1 to 3. The petitioner was also given beatings. In the meantime, the petitioner’s brother also reached there.

5. It is further the case of petitioner that several calls were made at No.100 to the police, but initially there was no response and at about 9:30 p.m PCR came, but refused to take action in the matter saying that they cannot do anything against an IPS Officer. The petitioner along with public persons went to the Police Station Nand Nagri, but SHO refused to take action in the matter. Complaint was also sent to Joint Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), but of no avail.

6. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. However, the learned M.M dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to direct the police to register FIR on the basis of complaint pending in the Court of learned M.M., North-East Distt. (Shahdara Distt.).

7. On behalf of petitioner, Mr.Lal Bahadur Pandey, Advocate has submitted that in every complaint filed by him, his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is being dismissed by the Court. He submits that when a cognizable offence has been disclosed in the complaint, the