Full Judgment Text
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision:14 January, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 149/2025, CRL.M.A. 833/2025 (stay)
RAJAN HANDA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Lakra, Ms. Shivani Kher
and Mr. Bhavya Sharma, Advocates.
versus
1. STATE
THROUGH THE SHO .....Respondent No.1
2. PARDUMAN KUMAR HANDA
S/o Lt. Nanak Chand Handa ….Respondent No.2
3. UJJWAL HANDA
S/o Parduman Kumar Handa ….Respondent No. 3
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for
the State with SI Sachin Kumar, PS
Amar Colony, New Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CRL.M.A.834/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 149/2025
3. The Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’ ) read with Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 ( hereinafter referred to as
CRL.M.C. 149/2025 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:49:08
‘B.N.S.S.’ ), has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, to challenge the Order
dated 12.11.2024 whereby the learned ASJ upheld the Order dated
23.02.2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing the
Application under Section 156(3) of CrPC.
4. Briefly stated, Complaint under Section 200 of CrPC along with an
Application under Section 156(3) of CrPC, was filed for registration of FIR
under Section 403/406/465/467/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
( hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC, 1860’ ).
5. The main allegations made by the Petitioner, were that the
Complainant, Respondent No. 2, Mr. Parduman Kumar Handa and
Respondent No. 3, Mr. Ujjwal Handa are the father and brother,
respectively, of the Petitioner/Complainant. They have inter se disputes and
a Civil Suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction , has been filed by the
Petitioner against the Respondents. It was further claimed that in order to
secure a favourable outcome, a forged, fabricated and unregistered
Partnership Deed allegedly pertaining to Partnership Firm, M/s Anjana
International Industries, was made , which had the forged signatures of the
Petitioner.
6. It was claimed that M/s Anjana International Industries is the
Proprietorship concern of the Petitioner, but merely to gain undue benefits
and to extort money, this unregistered forged Partnership Deed has been
created.
7. The Respondent No. 2/father of the Petitioner has committed breach
of trust by handing over the two cars belonging to the Proprietorship Firm of
the Petitioner, to the Respondent No. 3/brother of the Petitioner, without his
CRL.M.C. 149/2025 Page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:49:08
consent and authorisation. Likewise, the Respondent No. 3 has also
dishonestly misappropriated the two cars by retaining and using them
without the permission of the Complainant/Petitioner. The Petitioner alleged
that the two said cars are missing and have been deliberately concealed by
the respondents. The Petitioner had thus, sought registration of FIR against
the Respondents.
8. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate referred to the principles
enumerated in the Case of M/s Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, 92
(2001) DLT 217 and Vijay Gupta vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., 2019
SCC OnLine Del 6665 and observed that there was no field investigation
required and all the evidence was within the reach of the Petitioner. The
identity of the proposed accused persons, was also known. Admittedly, there
were civil disputes going on between the parties and the alleged forged
documents have been submitted during the pendency of the civil litigation in
the Court. It was thus, observed that it was not a fit case for exercise of
discretionary power under Section 156(3) of CrPC and the Application was
dismissed while an opportunity was given to the Petitioner to lead pre-
summoning evidence in his Complaint under Section 200 of CrPC.
9. The Petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the learned ASJ,
who after considering the facts and the contentions of the parties, observed
that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly rejected the Application
under Section 156(3) of CrPC vide a speaking Order and no interference was
merited.
10. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Section
482 of CrPC.
CRL.M.C. 149/2025 Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:49:08
11. Submissions heard and record perused.
12. From the facts as narrated above, there is evidently a civil dispute
between the Petitioner, and his father and brother, who are the Respondents.
A civil litigation is already pending between the parties. What emerges from
the averments made, is that there are two cars that have been purchased in
the name of the Firm, which is being used by the father and the brother of
the Petitioner.
13. The main grievance of the Petitioner seems to be his father has
unauthorisedly permitted the brother to use the two cars. The moot question
which has been raised by the Parties is, whether the Firm in whose name the
cars were purchased, is a Proprietorship Firm of the Petitioner or was
converted into a Partnership Firm. As has been rightly observed, the dispute
is essentially civil in nature and is inter se the family members. The identity
of the accused persons, is known and also no police investigations are
required in the present case.
14. In any case, if at any stage, the requirement of police assistance is felt,
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate even while conducting an enquiry under
Section 200 of CrPC, is empowered to direct Police investigation under
Section 202 CrPC. What has been dismissed is only an Application under
Section 156(3) of CrPC. However, it is not as if the rights of the Petitioner
have been foreclosed, but registration of FIR is deferred for recording of
evidence under Section 200 CrPC.
15. There is no infirmity in the impugned Order and the present Petition is
hereby dismissed.
16. The Petition is disposed of accordingly along with the pending
CRL.M.C. 149/2025 Page 4 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:49:08
Application.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 14, 2025/RS
CRL.M.C. 149/2025 Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:49:08