Delhi District Court
Mamli vs . on 29 April, 2019
In the court of Sh. Prayank Nayak, MM02 (SHD), Delhi.
CC No. 707/19
PS.: Farsh Bazar
Mamli
vs.
Mohd. Kamalluddin Khan & Anr.
29.04.2019
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders today at 2.00 PM.
(Prayank Nayak) MM02(KKD/SHD)/Delhi 29.04.2019 At 2.00PM.
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The allegations in brief are that the matter was settled between the parties before the court of Ld. ADJ, KKD courts and the statement was also recorded in this regard. It is alleged that on 25.07.2018, the accused persons had handed over a Demand draft to the complainant in terms of settlement agreement. However, the said Demand Draft was dishonoured on the ground of 'Draft Lost'.
I have heard arguments and perused the record. Ld counsel for the complainant has argued that the Demand Draft Mamli vs. Mohd. Kamalluddin Khan & Anr.
Page No . 1 of 2 was given before the court and later got dishonoured as the accused persons had reported it to be lost. Hence, he has submitted that offence of cheating is made out. He has placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP.
In the case titled Devender Kumar v. State, Crl. MC No.2116/13, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has observed "9. The Magistrate is not supposed to act mechanically and direct registration of FIR in each and every case in routine and casual manner. Criminal law is not expected to be set in motion on mere asking of a party. There has to be some substance in the complaint filed and it is only if it appears that the allegations are serious enough and establish the commission of cognizable offence requiring thorough investigation by the police, an FIR should be ordered to be registered. 10. In another case 'Gulab Chand Upadhyay vs. State' (2002) Crl.L.J. 2907, it was held that the use of the word 'may' in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in contradistinction to the word 'shall' in Section 154 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the Magistrate has the discretion to refuse registration of FIR".
It is observed that all the documents and evidence are in custody of the complainant and nothing is out of reach of the complainant which requires special investigation through Police. The recourse of inquiry by police is also available u/s 202 Cr. P. C. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the complainant deals with duty of the police to register an FIR and is not applicable to application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, application stands dismissed. The complainant is given opportunity to prove his case by adducing C.E. Put up for PSE on 04.10.2019.
(Prayank Nayak) MM02(KKD/SHD)/Delhi 29.04.2019 Mamli vs. Mohd. Kamalluddin Khan & Anr.
Page No . 2 of 2