Delhi District Court
Manoj Kumar Negi vs . on 4 August, 2018
In the court of Sh. Prayank Nayak, MM02 (SHD), Delhi.
R No. 496/16
PS. Farsh Bazar
Manoj Kumar Negi
vs.
Shailender Sharma
04.08.2018
At 04.00 p.m. Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of application U/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. The case of the complainant is that accused had entered into an agreement for sale of his property No.220/222, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. Upon failure of the accused to handover the property, a civil suit was filed by the complainant. During the civil suit, matter was settled and the accused stated that he is ready to handover the new property bearing No.198/4D/1C within six months to the complainant. However, for more than one year, the property was not delivered. Later accused assured the complainant to sell another property No.177/1. Towards the consideration of this property, complainant paid Rs.10 lakhs to the accused. As per the agreement between the parties, accused Shailender Sharma was to execute the sale deed but he failed to do so. Later the complainant came to know that the property is related to one Kapil Bhardwaj and is illegally constructed.
Manoj Kr. Negi vs. Shailender Sharma 3 When the complainant approached the accused, accused claimed the ownership of the property but did not show the original documents by making excuses. The complainant was also threatened by the accused of dire consequences. Later the complainant made a complaint to DCP concerned and SHO concerned on 24.08.2015.
Record perused. Arguments heard.
In the matter of "M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State"
2002 Crl. LJ NOC 333 (Delhi), it has been held as under: "7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers to a Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiative investigations but this 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 complain himself is in possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass order under Section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of the mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that the nature of allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police should step into held the complaint.
Further, in the matter of "Ravindra Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr." 2012 VIII AD (Delhi) 403, it has held as under: "Remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is a discretionary one as the provision proceeds with the word 'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so and pass orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable offence/offences and also Manoj Kr. Negi vs. Shailender Sharma 3 about necessity of police investigation for digging out of the evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of the police.
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. Further, the complainant has not revealed as to what documents have been forged by the accused persons and how. The recourse of inquiry by police is also available u/s 202 Cr. P. C. Identity of the accused is known to the complainant. Custodial interrogation is also not required.
Accordingly, the application of the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is dismissed. The complainant is given opportunity to prove her case by adducing C.E. Put up for PSE on 22.01.2019.
(Prayank Nayak) MM02(KKD/SHD)/Delhi 04.08.2018 Manoj Kr. Negi vs. Shailender Sharma 3