HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
M/S SHREE KARANGAR TEXTILES (P) LTD. (THROUGH ITS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE (THROUGH SHO OF P.S. KESHAV PURAM) & ORS – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1086/2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Petition against dismissal of request for FIR registration - Allegations of dishonoured cheques and outstanding debts do not constitute a cognizable offence - Courts emphasized the need for prima facie evidence of criminal intent for police intervention. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 7)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The powers under Section 156(3) CrPC must be exercised judiciously, requiring a prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence, and cannot be invoked merely based on allegations without supporting evidence. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to register an FIR against the accused for dishonoured cheques amounting to INR 48,46,104/- arising from business transactions, which the trial court dismissed, stating no cognizable offence was disclosed.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating the allegations pertained to a civil matter and did not warrant police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and if the courts misapplied the law regarding the dishonoured cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere dishonour of cheques does not constitute a cognizable offence without evidence of fraudulent intent, and the petitioner had alternative means to prove their case.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is directed against order dated 13th November, 2024 passed by the JMFC-04, North- West District, Rohini in Ct. Case 7103/2023, and the subsequent order passed by the revisional court on 11th December, 2024 in Cr. Rev. 379/2024. As a result of the said orders, the Petitioner’s request under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“CrPC”] for the issuance of a direction to register an FIR for the purpose of conducting an investigation, has been denied.
2. The Petitioner’s case is that the Accused, Ritu Jain/ Respondent No. 2, proprietor of the sole proprietorship M/s Raj Trading Co., and her husband, Ankur Jain/ Respondent No. 3 were engaged in regular business transactions with the Petitioner. The Accused approached the Petitioner Company for supply of goods like fabric and materials, and provided assurances and guarantees to take responsibility for the discharge of any liabilities arising from these transactions. The Petitioner issued various invoices and bills against the purchase of the aforesaid goods, and opened a separate running account in the name of Accused firm. This account now reflects an outstanding amount of INR 48,46,104/-, which is yet to be discharged by the accused persons. Additionally, the accused persons issued 17 cheques, which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. As a result, the Petitioner filed the instant complaint case. The Petitioner has also initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,, [“NIAct”] which are currently pending.
3. In light of the above circumstances, the Complainant also sought the intervention of the State agencies to register an FIR and to prosecute the accused persons. However, the Trial Court dismissed the aforementioned request through an order dated 13th November, 2024, to the following effect:
Arguments on the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC have already been heard. Matter is orders. No clarifications are required. The entire case file including the ATR has been perused carefully. Reproduction of facts is dispensed with for the sake of brevity.
In the considered opinion of this Court the perusal of complaint and the annexures attached therewith reveal that the allegations contained therein do not disclose commission of such cognizable offence which is required to be investigated by the police.
Reliance is placed by this Court on the judgment delivered in case titled as M/s Skipper Beverages P. Ltd. Vs. State, 2002 Cr. L.J. NOC 333 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to direct police to register case and initiate investigation but this power has to be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical manner. Those cases where allegations are not very serious and complainant herself in possession of evidence to prove allegation, there should be no need to pass order u/sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. But cases where the Magistrate is of the view that nature of allegation is such that complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before court, and interest of justice demand that police should step in to help complainant, police assistant can be taken.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and considering the settled legal position, this is not a fit case for invoking powers under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for directing the SHO of concerned police station to register FIR for the following reasons:
(i) The identity of the accused person(s) is already known.
(ii) The entire evidence is in the control of the complainant.
(iii) All the incriminating facts are already in the knowledge of the complainant.
(iv) Resort to section 202 Cr.PC can always be taken at the later stage.
In these circumstances, the application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for directions to police to register FIR and for
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.