Delhi District Court
Case No. 162/2 vs . M/S Bmw India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 7 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK
LD. MM-01: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Case No. 162/21
Ayush Gandhi & Ors. V s. Divyangee Srivastava
vs. M/s BMW India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
PS: Connaught Place
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/s 156(3) CrPC.
07.04.2022
Present: Sh. Lalit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Arguments on application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC heard.
Put up for orders today itself at 3.00 PM.
(PRAYANK NAYAK)
MM-01/PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI/07.04.2022
At 3.00PM
Present: None.
1.Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application u/s 156(3) CrPC filed on behalf of the complainant.
2. The allegations in brief are that both the complainants alongwith Ms. Divyangee Srivastava was a partner of the firm namely Women Hopes LLP. It is alleged that Ms. Divyangee Srivastava started directly dealing with the clients and made profit out of the same. It is further alleged that the payments were received by Ms. Divyangee Srivastava on her personal account without informing the other partners of the firm. Hence, it is alleged CC No. 162/2021 Ayush Gandhi & Ors. vs. Divyangee Srivastava Page No. 1 of 3. that offence of cheating and forgery has been committed by Ms. Divyangee Srivastava.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to discuss the law pertaining to the application u/s 156(3) CrPC. 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 complainant 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."
5. Further, in the matter of "Ravindra Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another" 2012 VIII AD (Delhi) 403, it has held as under: -
"Remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC 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 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."
6. Coming to the facts in hand, 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. In any other eventuality, recourse of inquiry by police is also available u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Identity of the proposed accused is also known to the complainant. CC No. 162/2021 Ayush Gandhi & Ors. vs. Divyangee Srivastava Page No. 2 of 3. Hence, in view of the legal position stated above, this Court does not find sufficient grounds to allow the present application. Accordingly, the application of the complainant u/s 156(3) CrPC is dismissed. The complainant is given opportunity to prove her case by adducing CE.
Put up for PSE on 05.08.2022.
(PRAYANK NAYAK) MM-01/PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI/07.04.2022 CC No. 162/2021 Ayush Gandhi & Ors. vs. Divyangee Srivastava Page No. 3 of 3.