Delhi District Court
Cc No. 16922/2018 Chaman Lal Aggarwal & ... vs . M/S Bptp Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 1 Of 3. on 8 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK
LD. MM-01: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Case No. 16922/2018
Chaman Lal Aggarwal & Ors. V s. M/s BPTP Ltd. & Ors.
PS: Connaught Place
08.11.2021
Present: Sh. Dharmender Priyani, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Arguments were heard by my Ld. Predecessor and hence fresh
arguments heard today.
Put up for orders today itself at 3.00 PM.
(PRAYANK NAYAK)
MM-01/PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI /08.11.2021
At 3.00 PM
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC
filed on behalf of the complainant.
1.Allegations in brief are that the complainants were approached by Mr. C.M. Sharma who induced the complainants to invest money in the project of BPTP Ltd. Thereafter the complainants met the directors of BPTP Ltd. who induced the complainants for investment in their project at Faridabad.
2. Thereafter the complainants booked a residential unit in the project of BPTP Ltd. However, later they came to know that the BPTP Ltd.had not even acquired the land for the said projects and later complainants were given opportunity to buy residential plot at the project developed by BPTP Ltd. at Gurgaon. It is alleged by the complainants that despite making the payment CC No. 16922/2018 Chaman Lal Aggarwal & Ors. vs. M/s BPTP Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 1 of 3. of more than Rs.1 crore, no possession of any plot was handed over by the BPTP Ltd.to the complainants.
3. As per the ATR filed by the police, no cognizable offence is made out and the case is pure of civil nature.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. Ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lallan Bhai & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr, Ramesh Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors, State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others to argue that direction to register FIR be given to the police.
5. Here it is relevant to look into the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the mater of Sh. Subhkaran Luharuka Vs. State Cr.M.L Nos. 6122- 23/2005 and 6133-34/2005, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi circulated the following guidelines for the Magistrates dealing with the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. :-
"Of course, it is open to the Magistrate to proceed under Chapter XII of the Code when an application under Section 156(3) of the Code is also filed along with a complaint under Section 200 of the Code if the Magistrate decides not to take cognizance of the complaint. However, in that case, the Magistrate, before passing any order to proceed under Chapter XII, should not only satisfy himself about the pre requisites as aforesaid, but, additionally, he should also be satisfied that it is necessary to direct police investigation in the matter for collection of evidence which is neither in the possession of the complainant nor can be produced by the witnesses on being summoned by the Court at the instance of complainant, and the matter is such which calls for investigation by a State agency. The Magistrate must pass an order giving cogent reason as to why he intends to proceed under Chapter XII instead of Chapter XV of the Code."
6. Hence, it is clear that the direction for registration of FIR should be given only if the police investigation is required and the complainant is not in a position to prove her allegations. However, in the present case all the evidence is within the reach of the complainant and police investigation is not required. The identity of the proposed accused is also known to the CC No. 16922/2018 Chaman Lal Aggarwal & Ors. vs. M/s BPTP Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 2 of 3. complainant. The recourse to inquiry by police, if required, is also available u/s 202 Cr.PC.
7. Accordingly, this court does not find any merit in the present application. The judgments relied upon by the complainant deal with duty of police to register an FIR and is not applicable to application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Hence, the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C stands dismissed.
8. I take cognizance of the offence. The complainant is given opportunity to prove her case by adducing C.E. Put up for PSE on 29.03.2022.
(PRAYANK NAYAK) MM-01/PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI /08.11.2021 CC No. 16922/2018 Chaman Lal Aggarwal & Ors. vs. M/s BPTP Ltd. & Ors. Page No. 3 of 3.