Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 899

2025 DHC 799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
Harmeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Crl. M.C. Nos. 4508, 4523, 4544 of 2013
Decided On : 28-01-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellants : Seema Gupta, Roushan Choudhary, Dikyanshu Sharma
For the Respondents : Raghuinder Verma, Vivek Kumar

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Seema Gupta, Mr. Roushan Choudhary, Mr. Dikyanshu Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for the State, Mr. Siddhartha Tanwar, Mr. Vikas Arora, Mr. Nishi Kant Pandey, Ms. Radhika Arora

A magistrate can only direct the officer in charge of a police station to register an FIR; directions to superior officers exceed this authority.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Interpretation of powers of Magistrates in directing FIR registration - Magistrate’s power is confined to directing the Officer in charge of the Police Station and not a superior officer for FIR registration - No substantial evidence was provided for FIR registration; thus, learned ASJ was correct in setting aside the MM's directive. (Paras 10, 18, 20, 52)

(B) Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Clarified that a higher officer cannot be directed for investigation and only the officer in charge is to be tasked for inquiries under Section 156(3).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleges police collusion in an incident involving property damages. An FIR was sought against certain individuals and police inaction followed an impugned order directed by the MM, later set aside by the ASJ.

Findings of Court:
The ASJ observed that the MM directed a superior officer improperly, leading to a lack of sufficient evidence supporting the necessity for FIR registration against officials.

Issues: Whether the ASJ was correct in setting aside the MM's order for no substantial evidence of cognizable offences requiring an immediate FIR.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that a Magistrate under Section 156(3) should only direct the Officer in charge to take action, reinforcing the principle that proper complaints must show clear justification before FIR registration is mandated.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitions heard together for equitable adjudication. (Para 1 , 2)
2. facts concerning property and alleged misconduct. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court observations on police inaction amidst allegations. (Para 5 , 6 , 12)
4. legal arguments challenging asj's findings. (Para 7 , 11)
5. conclusion on proper judicial authority and final order. (Para 32 , 53)

ORDER :

1. Since the reliefs sought in these petitions, i.e. CRL MC No. 4508/2013, CRL MC 4523/2013, CRL MC 4544/2013, are same and similar, and arising out of the same cause of action, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for proper adjudication.

2. The captioned petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as the “Code”) [now under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter as the “BNSS”)] read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 17^th July, 2013 (hereinafter as the ”impugned order”) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter as the “ASJ”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No. IX/1312, Mandir Wali Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter as the “subject property”). In the year 2007, the petitioner applied for an overdraft limit with Syndicate Bank and handed over the requisite documents to a bank agent/mediator namely Mr. Akashdeep Kapoor. However, due to alleged fraud committed by the said mediator, the petitioner filed an FIR bearing No. 259/09 against the bank officials and the mediator. Thereafter, proceedings against the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi were initiated by the Syndicate Bank. It is further claimed by the petitioner that he was in possession of the subject property when the bank officials took symbolic possession of the 100 square yards of the subject property on 3^rd July, 2010.

4. On the eventful day of 27^th November, 2011, the respondent no. 2 to 6 in CRL MC No. 4544/2013 i.e., Mrs. Harvinder Kaur, Mr. Jitender Singh, Mr. Tilak Raj, Mr. Sonu and Mr. Monu (hereinafter as the “accused individuals”) entered the 3^rd floor of the subject property and allegedly started damaging the premises. Accordingly, the petitioner informed the police about the same and the concerned police officials reached the premises. It is claimed by the accused individuals that the subject property is owned by them vide sale deed dated 16^th September, 2010.

5. It is alleged by the petitioner that despite the accused individuals destroying various article on the subject property premises in the presence of the police, no action was taken by them against the accused individuals and no sufficient help was provided to the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the same, a complaint bearing no. 41/2011 was filed against the accused individuals and the concerned police officials and an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was moved by the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-1 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter as the “MM”) seeking appropriate directions to the concerned police officials for prosecuting the involved persons in the instant matter.

7. The learned MM passed an order dated 15^th March, 2011, thereby directing the DCP (East) to register an FIR in the instant matter and to handover the investigation to the DIU.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government of NCT Delhi (respondent in CRL MC No. 4508/2013), the concerned police officials (respondent no. 2 to 3 in CRL MC. No. 4523/2013) and the accused individuals (respondent no. 2 to 6 in CRL MC No. 4544/2013) filed revision petitions bearing nos. 31/2013, 32/2013 and 33/2013, respectively, against the aforesaid order passed by the learned MM. Accordingly, the learned ASJ passed by the impugned order setting aside the order dated 15^th March, 2011 on the ground that there is