IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:08.05.2025 + CRL.M.C. 1840/2024 ANIL DUTT SHARMA .....Petitioner versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi & Ms. Shobha Siddhiki, Advs.

For the Respondent : Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed against the order dated 09.12.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 09.12.2023’) passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (‘PDSJ’), North East District, Karkardooma Courts in CR No. 185/2023 titled Anil Dutt Sharma v. State & Anrs. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 14.09.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 14.09.2023’) passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), North East, Karkardooma Courts.

2. The learned PDSJ, by the impugned order dated 09.12.2023, Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 1840/2024 Page 1 of 13 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, thereby upholding the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking registration of FIR, and summoning of three police officials, for the alleged offences under Sections 166 /166-A/ 167/ 177/ 182/ 193/ 196/ 211/ 217/ 218/ 500/ 506/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) had been dismissed.

3. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) along with an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC against certain public persons and police officials. It is the case of the petitioner that certain FIRs being FIR No. 1110/2014 and 1111/2014 had vexatiously been registered under Section 384 of the IPC against him thereby alleging that the petitioner, while representing himself as JE of the Municipal Corporation, had demanded protection money from the complainants in the respective FIRs on the pretext of non-demolition of the properties of the complainants.

4. It is alleged that FIR No. 1110/2014 was registered on a false complaint given by one Ved Prakash/accused no. 1 and marked to SI Parvesh/accused No. 2 for investigation. Further, FIR No. 1111/2014 was registered on a complaint given by one Surender Kasana/accused No. 3, and marked for investigation to SI Gopi Chand/accused no. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that both the FIRs were registered on the same day in connivance with the then SHO/accused no. 5 of Police Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 1840/2024 Page 2 of 13 Station Bhajanpura. It is stated that Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are property dealers and builders allegedly dealing with the business of unauthorized construction in collusion with the police and MCD officials. It is further alleged that accused nos. 2, 4-5 failed to conduct investigation against the petitioner in a proper manner. It is alleged that the FIRs were registered on the basis of false and concocted allegations. It is further the case of the petitioner that as many as 12 false FIRs were registered against him in different police stations on similar allegations.

5. The learned MM vide impugned order dated 14.09.2023 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. In relation to three accused persons, the learned MM noted that they were police officials, and no previous sanction had been obtained by the petitioner. Consequently, the learned MM dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and the complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC against three police officials. 6. In regard to the other two accused persons, the learned MM dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the CrPC noting that the petitioner was aware of the name and address of the proposed accused persons, and the entire evidence was within the reach of the petitioner at this stage. The