A Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must direct the registration of an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence involving complex technical evidence that requires specialized police investigation beyond the capacity of a private complaint proceeding.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking directions to official respondents No. 1 to 4 for registering an FIR, on the basis of the complaint dated 29.05.2015 moved by the petitioner, against respondent No. 5-Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor and also for setting aside the order dated 28.10.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram in Complaint bearing No. 456 of 2015 (Annexure P-21), titled as Tata Sia Airlines Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor, whereby an application filed by the petitioner, seeking registration of an FIR, had been treated as a private complaint.

2. Brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are that the petitioner, which is operating a full-service airline under the brand “Vistara”, had filed the aforementioned complaint before the police against respondent No. 5 alleging therein that respondent No. 5 was employed with the petitioner/company since 01.12.2014 as Senior Manager (IT Lead-Program Delivery). In May, 2015, a prospective pilot brought to the notice of the petitioner a suspicious email offering employment in return for payment. The petitioner conducted an internal investigation through its IT Department, which revealed that respondent No. 5 had misused his official position and access to the company’s systems to create fake email IDs on the petitioner’s server. Using these fabricated identities, he contacted job aspirants, issued forged appointment communications and fraudulently induced them to pay money on the false promise of employment. The investigation further disclosed that he forged official letterheads and signatures of senior officials, thereby impersonating the petitioner and tarnishing its reputation while causing financial loss to unsuspecting individuals. In one instance, a victim reportedly paid approximately ₹19 lakhs to respondent No. 5. Upon discovery of the fraudulent activities, the petitioner issued a show cause notice dated 23.05.2015 to respondent No. 5. Instead of responding, he absented himself from work and tendered his resignation the same day, which was not accepted. Subsequently, his services were terminated on 25.05.2015. The petitioner also suspected involvement of other unknown persons in the conspiracy.

3. It is further revealed that the petitioner reported the matter to the police authorities and submitted a detailed complaint on 29.05.2015 along with supporting documents and evidence. However, no FIR was registered against respondent No. 5 and other unknown accused. Instead, the police authorities continued seeking additional information and conducted a prolonged preliminary inquiry without taking formal action. Aggrieved by the inaction of the police, the petitioner approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by moving an application under Section 156(3) of the Code. However, vide impugned order dated 28.10.2015, the Magistrate concerned treated the said complaint as a private complaint without directing registration of an FIR.

4. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the allegations contained in the aforesaid complaint clearly disclosed commission of cognizable offences, including cheating, forgery and offences under the Information Technolo