CRL.M.C. 1738/2020

Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Pronounced on: 20^th May, 2022

+

CRL.M.C. 1738/2020

RAJ BALA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Shiv Ram Singh, Advocate

Versus

STATE OF NCT & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through:

Mr.G. M. Farooqui, APP for R-

1/State

Mr.Rajinder Pal Singh, Adv. for R-2

Ms.Akanksha Choudhary, Adv. for

R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the

applicant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (for short, “learned

MM”) being aggrieved by the order dated 28^th February, 2020, passed in

C.C. No.24567/2019.

2.

The petitioner had, along with her complaint, filed an application

under Section 156(3) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short, “Cr.P.C.”) seeking directions to the police for the registration of an

FIR for the commission of offences under Sections 379/420/406/465/

467/468/471/506/120B IPC against the respondents No.2 and 3 herein.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001935

CRL.M.C. 1738/2020

Page 2 of 6

3.

Mr. Shiv Ram Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that

the learned MM had fallen into error in dismissing the application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that on an earlier occasion, a similar

application had been dismissed. It was submitted by the learned counsel

that the fact situation was different when the earlier application had been

dismissed, as the petitioner was not in possession of any document to

substantiate her allegations. That was also the reason why she had

withdrawn her first complaint. It was submitted that in a civil suit filed by

the respondent No.2, he had filed copies of certain documents on the basis

of which, the respondent No.2 claimed that he had purchased a part of the

property from the petitioner. It was submitted that admittedly, the full

consideration has not been paid by the respondent No.3, despite having

been put in possession and the petitioner was thus defrauded of her

valuable property. Her original documents were also stolen by the

respondent No.3 and his associates. Despite these important facts, the

learned MM had declined to direct the registration of the FIR to initiate

police investigations. It was submitted that the respondents were not co-

operating with the inquiry that the police had sought to make from them, as

was evident from the Status Reports that they had submitted to the learned

Trial Court. Thus, on the basis of new facts, the complaint being

maintainable, the application also ought to have been entertained by the

learned MM and directions issued to the police for the registration of the

FIR and conduct investigations.

4.

Mr.Rajinder Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and

Ms.Akanksha Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001935

CRL.M.C. 1738/2020

Page 3 of 6

other hand, submitted that the second application under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed by the learned MM as the facts, on the basis

of which investigations were sought, were identical in both applications. It

was also contended that the order dismissing the first application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was a speaking order on merits and therefore, the

second application could not have been entertained by the learned MM and

hence, it was rightly dismissed. In the replies of the respondents No.2 and

3, it was further submitted that the first complaint had also been withdrawn

by the present petitioner, without leading any evidence. Therefore, the

dismissal of the second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was

justified.

5.

Mr.G.M.Farooqui, learned APP for the State also submitted that no

cognizable offence was disclosed and therefore, the learned MM has

rightly dec