Delhi District CourtHigh Court In M/S. Skipper Beverages ... vs . State, Cited As 2001 on 4 February, 2016Krishan Lal v. Dal Chand and Another
CC No. 3/01/15
PS Moti Nagar
04.02.2016

Present :        Complainant with Ld. LAC Sh. Ravinder Singh.

1.Brief facts of the case are that complainant used to reside at Jhuggi No.
248, Camp No. 3, Bhim Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi, till 20.01.2015. That initially
complainant had cordial relation with the accused Dal Chand. Later on he came to
know that accused is having a criminal background and do the work of making
fake voter ID Card and Caste Certificate. That coming to know this, complainant
severed all his relations with the accused. It is alleged that the accused made false
voter ID Cards of Dalip Kanojia, Bal Kishan and Geeta on the address of the
complainant. On coming to know this complainant submitted form no. 7 on
23.01.2009 in the Office of Election Office for Deletion of the names. It is stated
that on 05.10.2014 accused came to the house of the complainant and started
quarreling with him and also threatened him to kill him if complainant would not
vacate the jhuggi. Thereafter, on 05.10.2014 accused no. 1 made a complaint to
SHO PS Mianwali Nagar. It is stated that on 29.12.2014 complainant had gone to
the house of her wife. Accused no. 1 reached there and again threatened to kill the
complainant. It is further stated that on 20.01.2015 accused no. 1 along with 4-5
persons came at the jhuggi of the complainant and forcibly dispossessed him. He
also broken the lock of the complainant and replaced the same with another one.
Thereafter, he again threatened the complainant. It is alleged that accused handed
over the jhuggi of the complainant to Dalip Kanojia, Geeta and Bal Kishan. It is
stated that accused no. 1 apprised them that this is his jhuggi and they will live
there as tenants. Thereafter, on 13.02.2015 complainant again approached the
local police however, no action has been taken by the police so far. It is further
stated that only a kalandrau/s 107/150Cr.P.C. was prepared by the police against
the complainant only. On the basis of these facts it is argued that accused no. 1
committed the offence punishableu/s 415/419/454/465/506IPC and against
accused no. 2 i.e. SHO PS Mianwali Nagar has committed offence punishable u/sCC no. 3/01/15 PS Mianwali Nagar                                            Page 1 of 4166IPC.2.      Reply was sought from the SHO concerned wherein it is reported that the
alleged jhuggi is on Government Land and no one is having any registry or power
of attorney in respect of the same. It is further reported that jhuggi belongs to the
accused Dal Chand who was having ration card on that address with him prior to
the ration card of the complainant. It is stated that the matter is of civil nature.
Further regarding quarrel Kalandrau/s 107/150Cr.P.C. was made.4.      It is settled law that U/s 156 (3)Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate
has power to direct the police to register a case and investigate the matter, but this
power is to be exercised judiciously and not in a technical manner. In the matters
where the complainant has in his possession all the evidence required to prove his
allegations, there should be no need to pass an order U/s 156Code of Criminal
Procedure. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of our own Hon'ble
High Court in M/s. SKIPPER BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE, Cited as 2001
IV AD (Delhi), wherein it has been held as under:"It is true thatSection 156(3)of the Code
                 empowers the Magistrate to direct the police to register a
                 case and initiate investigation but his power has to be
                 exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a
                 mechanical manner. In those cases where the allegations
                 are not very serious and the complainant himself is in
                 possession of evidence to prove his allegations, there
                 should be no need to pass orders undersection 156 (3)of
                 the Code. This discretion ought to be exercised after
                 proper application of mind and only in those cases where
                 the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of the
                 allegations is such that the complainant himself may not
                 be in a position to collect and produce evidence before the
                 court and interest of justice demand that the police should
                 step in the help the complainant".5.      Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down guidelines to decide
applicationsu/s 156(3)Cr.P.C. in a case titled asPriyanka Srivastava and
Another v. State of U.P. and Others(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2012 )
DOD. 19.03.15, wherein it was held
             "26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under SectionCC no. 3/01/15 PS Mianwali Nagar                                               Page 2 of 4156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. a court of law is
             involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage ofSection
             154of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the
             authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved
             citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the
             said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations
             takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be
             made to scuttle and curb the same.27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country
             whereSection 156(3)Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported
             by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the
             invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an
             appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised
             to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the
             allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more
             responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of
             applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking
             any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons.
             That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one
             tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory
             provision which can be challenged under the framework of said
             Act or underArticle 226of the Constitution of India. But it
             cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as
             if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have
             already indicated that there has to be prior applications underSection 154(1)and154(3)while filing a petition underSection
             156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the
             application and necessary documents to that effect shall be
             filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application
             underSection 156(3)be supported by an affidavit so that theCC no. 3/01/15 PS Mianwali Nagar                                               Page 3 of 4person making the application should be conscious and also
             endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because
             once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for
             prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to
             casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate underSection
             156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of
             the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard
             being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are
             compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal
             sphere,       matrimonial   dispute/family   disputes,   commercial
             offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the
             cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal
             prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed.
             That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the
             delay in lodging of the FIR".7.      All the evidences in the present case are in the reach of complainant.
Furthermore, from the facts of the case, the undersigned is of the opinion that the
assistance of investigating agency is not required in the present case for the
collection of evidence. The facts and circumstances of the present case are such
that the complainant is in possession of entire evidence. Thus it does not appear
to be a case where the police assistance is required for the purpose of collection of
evidence. None of the evidence in the present case is beyond the reach of the
complainant. Accordingly, the present applicationu/s 156 (3)of Code of Criminal is
dismissed. In the facts of the present case, the undersigned deem it appropriate
that the complainant be directed to prove the allegations made by him on the oath.9.      Therefore, the undersigned takes cognizance of the complaint and
complainant is called upon to bring pre-summoning evidence on 22.04.2016.(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
                                                  MM-04:West:THC:Delhi:04.02.2016.CC no. 3/01/15 PS Mianwali Nagar                                              Page 4 of 4