Bharam Prakash Yadav vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 12.08.2026
Pronounced on : 01.09.2026
Uploaded on: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010141822025
+ CRL.M.C. 1875/2025
BHARAM PRAKASH YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Pipaniya, Mr. Paras
Punyani, Ms. Nikita Garg, Mr. Harsh
S. Tomar (Mb: 8700878778)
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State.
SI Priyanka P.S. S.P.Badli
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘ CrPC' ), assailing the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Ld. ASJ-
IV, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Crl. Revision No. 354/2023 ,
whereby the order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the Ld. MM, Rohini
Courts, Delhi, in Ct. Case No. 495/2023 was upheld.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 73 years. He alleges
that he and his family were subjected to prolonged pressure and
intimidation by Respondent No. 2, his daughter-in-law, and her family
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 1 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

members, some of whom were serving or retired personnel of the Delhi
Police. The matrimonial dispute between Respondent No. 2 and the
Petitioner's deceased son had continued for several years and was
allegedly accompanied by repeated demands for partition and transfer of
property in favour of Respondent No. 2.
3. The Petitioner alleges that Respondents No. 5, 6 and 7, who held
influential positions in the Delhi Police, repeatedly interfered in the family
dispute and threatened him and his family with false and serious criminal
cases if their demands were not fulfilled.
4. On 13.11.2022, while the Petitioner and his wife were in Gurugram,
Respondent No. 6 allegedly called the Petitioner's wife and directed them
to return home immediately, threatening that otherwise false criminal
cases would be initiated against them. They consequently returned home
at about 8:00–8:30 PM, where Respondent No. 2 and several of her family
members were allegedly present.
5. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondents thereafter demanded
transfer of his residential property measuring approximately 350 sq. yds.,
forming part of Khasra No. 29/34, situated in the abadi of Old Lal Dora,
Village Libaspur, Delhi-110042, in favour of Respondent No. 2. He
alleges that he and his family were threatened with false allegations of
rape and other serious offences if the property was not transferred.
Respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 allegedly remained at his residence overnight
and the original Lal Dora Certificate relating to the property was taken
from him.
6. On 14.11.2022, the Petitioner's brother, brother-in-law and a
common acquaintance were allegedly called to his residence, where
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 2 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

Respondents No. 5, 6 and 8 again threatened him and demanded transfer
of the entire property. The Petitioner further alleges that Respondent No. 7
forcibly took him to the office of the Sub-Registrar and, under threats of
false criminal prosecution, compelled him to execute various documents
in favour of Respondent No. 2, including a notarised GPA, Gift Deed,
Possession Letter, Settlement/Partition Deed and affidavits. Three cheques
of ₹50 lakhs each, totalling ₹1.50 crores, were also allegedly obtained
from him under the same circumstances. The Petitioner thereafter
approached the Delhi State Cooperative Bank on 03.12.2022 and
requested that payment of the said cheques be stopped.
7. In the meantime, FIR No. 850/2022 dated 17.11.2022 was
registered at P.S. Samaypur Badli under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of
the POCSO Act against the Petitioner's deceased son. The Petitioner
alleges that the FIR was lodged shortly after the alleged coercive property
transaction and was used to prevent him and his family from raising any
complaint regarding the alleged extortion and forcible transfer of
property. He has also raised a dispute regarding the age of Respondent
No. 3.
8. According to the Petitioner, the alleged coercion, threats and
subsequent criminal proceedings caused severe mental trauma to his
deceased son, resulting in a serious deterioration in his mental condition
and ultimately contributing to his untimely demise.
9. The Petitioner thereafter approached the competent authorities by
making a complaint before the SHO, P.S. Samaypur Badli on 23.11.2022
and another complaint before the DCP, North District on 15.03.2023.
10. Alleging that no effective investigation was conducted, the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 3 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

Petitioner approached the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section
156(3) CrPC and also pursued proceedings under Section 200 CrPC. The
application under Section 156(3) CrPC was dismissed vide order dated
19.08.2023. Relevant portion of the order is quoted hereinbelow:
“In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that the
respondents forcefully and under fear/coercion got the title
documents transferred pertaining to property bearing No.
L-type, out of Khasra No.29/34, Old Lal Daura, Village
Libaspur, Delhi-82 in favour of the respondent/accused no.
1 namely Mukesh Kumar Yadav and also took three
cheques of Rs. 50 lakhs forcefully in favour of the
respondent/accused no.1. It is pertinent to mention that the
aforesaid documents/agreement pertaining to the aforesaid
property was executed on 14.11.2022. However, the
complaint to the SHO regarding the same was given on
23.11.2022. The complainant could not provide any
justification as to why he has approached the police official
after a lapse of almost 09 days since the execution of the
agreement pertaining to the aforesaid property. This court
is also mindful of the fact that one of the respondent namely
Mukesh Yadav has also lodged an FIR against the son of
the complainant on 17.11.2022 u/s 376 IPC and 6 of
POCSO Act. Be it as it may be, the complainant is aware of
the witnesses who are to be examined and / or in possession
of complete details of the complaint / documents. The mode
and manner in which the alleged offence is stated to have
been committed is clear, identity of the accused is also not
to be established. As per the submissions, identity of the
accused persons is known to the complainant. The
complainant has brought nothing on record to suggest as to
what evidence is required to be collected through police
investigation. Therefore, the offence committed if any may
be proved by leading evidence by the complainant himself.
No active or passive assistance required from the state
machinery for investigation. Therefore, there is no
requirement of police investigation in this case for the
purpose of collection of evidence. The case, if any, can be
proved by the evidence of the complainant. If any further
evidence would be required, the same can be summoned by
the court at the required stage u/s 202 Cr.P.C. In view of
the above discussion the present application filed u/s 156
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 4 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

(3) Cr.P.C is dismissed. Now to come up for PSE on
25.11.2023.”
11. The Petitioner thereafter preferred a criminal revision under
Sections 397/399 CrPC before the learned ASJ, which was dismissed vide
order dated 05.12.2024.Relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted
hereinbelow:
“Trial Court Record has been summoned. Perusal of the
Trial Court Record shows that revisionist filed complaint
under section 200 Cr.P.C., along with application under
section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., against respondents on 28.03.2023.
ATR was called on application under section 156 (3) Cr.
PC and after hearing arguments, the aforementioned
application was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide
impugned order dated 19.08.2023 and the matter was fixed
up for recording of pre-summoning evidence.
Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that
revisionist/complainant has alleged in his complaint that
the respondents forcefully and after putting him under fear
and coercion, got the title documents pertaining to property
bearing no. L-Type, out of Khasra No.29/34, Old Lal
Daura, Village: Libaspur, Delhi-110082 transferred in
favour of respondent Mukesh Kumar Yadav. It is also
alleged in the complaint that respondents also took three
cheques of Rs.50 lakhs forcefully in favour of respondent
no.1 Ms. Mukesh Yadav who is wife of his late son Sh.
Satish Yadav. The revisionist has also placed on record the
excerpt of the audio recording of the conversation taken
place at his house in a CD. It is alleged by revisionist that
the respondents misused police powers and kept the
revisionist under threat, intimidation as a hostage on night
of 13.11.2022 and the whole day of 14.11.2022.
Trial Court Record including the impugned order dated
19.08.2023 has been perused by this Court. Perusal of the
impugned order dated 19.08.2023 shows that Ld. Trial
Court has rightly observed in the impugned order dated
19.08.2023 that the complainant is aware of the witnesses
who are to be examined and he is in possession of complete
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 5 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

details of the complaint / documents. It is also rightly
observed by Ld. Trial Court that identity of accused persons
is known to the complainant and the offence committed by
respondents may be proved by leading evidence by the
complainant himself. Thus, this Court is of considered view
that the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 is a well
reasoned order and same has been passed after considering
all the relevant facts. Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed
that no active or passive assistance of state machinery is
required for the purpose of investigation in the present case
and that if any further evidence would be required, same
may be summoned by Ld. Trial Court.
In the light of above-discussion as well as case law, this
Court is of considered view that no illegality, infirmity or
perversity is found in the impugned order dated 19.08.2023
passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It is found to be detailed,
well reasoned and legally sound decision. For the afore-
mentioned reasons, present revision petition, filed by
Revisionist / Complainant is hereby dismissed and the
impugned order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court is upheld.
A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties and be
also sent to Ld. Trial Court.”
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations
disclose cognizable offences and that investigation by the police is
necessary for collection and preservation of evidence which is beyond the
effective reach of a private complainant. It is submitted that the Petitioner
relies upon call records, audio recordings, property documents, bank
records, the three cheques, documentary evidence concerning the
property, witness statements and records relating to the FIR, which
require forensic examination, seizure, verification and investigation by an
independent agency, particularly since some of the persons against whom
allegations have been made are connected with the police force.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 6 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

13. It is further submitted that the allegations include offences of
coercion, illegal confinement, criminal intimidation and extortion, and
that the material evidence, including financial records, electronic
evidence, original documents and other relevant material, may require
police seizure, forensic examination and independent verification.
14. Learned counsel further submits that the delay of nine days in
approaching the authorities occurred on account of continuous threats and
intimidation and the apprehension of false criminal cases, particularly in
view of the alleged influence of the private Respondents within the police
department. It is submitted that the Petitioner had, at the earliest available
opportunity, taken steps to safeguard his interests by instructing the bank
to stop payment of the cheques on 03.12.2022.
15. Learned counsel further relies upon the proceedings before this
Court in W.P. (CRL.) 1027/2023 , including the order dated 07.10.2024 in
CRL.M.A. 30173/2024 , wherein it was recorded that an enquiry had been
conducted and disciplinary action had been proposed against Sub-
Inspector Balwan Yadav, while the allegation against Head Constable
Virender Yadav was stated not to have been substantiated.
16. Reliance is also placed upon Amit Khera v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
& Ors., ILR (2010) VI DELHI 725 WP . It is submitted that the impugned
orders have misapplied the settled legal position that where a cognizable
offence is disclosed and the evidence requires forensic and technical
verification, including tracing of call records, forensic examination of
documents and examination of the financial trail, investigation by the
police is warranted. It is submitted that the Magistrate is duty-bound to act
upon a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 7 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
17. The issue for consideration is whether, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court was justified in
declining investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and whether the
learned ASJ erred in upholding the said order.
18. Before examining the facts of the present case, it would be apposite
to reiterate that the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is discretionary in
nature. The mere disclosure of a cognizable offence in a complaint does
not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right upon the complainant to seek an
investigation by the police. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind
to the nature of the allegations, the material sought to be collected and the
necessity of police assistance for collection of such material.
19. The distinction between a case where police investigation is
necessary and one where the complainant can lead evidence himself is
well recognised. Where the allegations are of such a nature that the
evidence is within the possession or reach of the complainant, or can be
produced by examining witnesses and summoning the relevant
documents, the Magistrate may legitimately decline to invoke Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. and proceed with the complaint in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code. On the other hand,
where the nature of the allegations or the evidence sought to be collected
requires active assistance of the investigating agency, the Magistrate may
direct investigation.
20. In the present case, the allegations of the Petitioner essentially arise
out of the alleged coercive execution of property documents and obtaining
of three cheques of ₹50 lakhs each. The Petitioner is admittedly aware of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 8 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

the identity and role attributed to each of the persons against whom
allegations have been made. He has also identified the witnesses whom he
seeks to rely upon and has placed on record material including an audio
recording of the alleged incident.
21. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that
investigation is necessary for collection and forensic examination of call
records, audio recordings, bank records, property documents and cheques,
in the considered view of this Court, does not by itself warrant a direction
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The relevant question is whether such
material is beyond the reach of the complainant and cannot effectively be
produced before the Court except through police investigation.
22. The Petitioner has not demonstrated any specific investigative
requirement which necessarily requires the intervention of the police. The
bank records and other documentary material, if required, can be
summoned in accordance with law. The witnesses are admittedly known
to the Petitioner and can be examined by him. The audio recording relied
upon by the Petitioner is already stated to be in his possession. Likewise,
the property documents and cheques forming the basis of the allegations
are specifically identified by the Petitioner. The mere possibility that some
of this material may subsequently require verification or forensic
examination cannot, in the absence of a demonstrated necessity, be treated
as sufficient ground for directing registration of an FIR.
23. This Court is also conscious of the allegation that certain accused
persons are connected with the police force and that police powers were
allegedly misused. The said allegation is serious. However, the
seriousness of an allegation cannot, by itself, determine the necessity of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 9 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The material relied upon by
the Petitioner regarding the enquiry conducted in the proceedings before
this Court may be relevant to the Petitioner's grievance, but it does not, at
this stage, establish the commission of the offences alleged in the
complaint or demonstrate that the evidence necessary for adjudication of
the complaint is beyond his reach.
24. The Petitioner has also sought to explain the delay in approaching
the police by referring to the alleged threats and the apprehension of false
criminal proceedings. The explanation furnished by the Petitioner may be
considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage while
assessing the evidence. However, for the limited purpose of determining
whether police investigation was necessary under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
the delay, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner has himself identified
the accused, witnesses and documentary material, constitutes a relevant
circumstance which the learned Trial Court was entitled to take into
consideration. The said circumstance cannot, however, be treated as a
finding on the truthfulness of the allegations.
25. It is significant that the learned Trial Court did not terminate the
Petitioner's complaint proceedings. The application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was declined and the matter was directed to proceed by way of
pre-summoning evidence. Thus, the Petitioner continues to have the
remedy of leading evidence in support of the allegations and of seeking
appropriate assistance of the Court for securing such evidence as may be
permissible in law.
26. The learned ASJ, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has
considered the material available on the Trial Court Record and has
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 10 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

specifically noticed the allegations regarding forcible transfer of the
property, obtaining of the three cheques, the audio recording and the
alleged misuse of police powers. After considering the applicable legal
principles, the learned ASJ has concurred with the finding of the learned
Magistrate that the complainant is aware of the witnesses and the relevant
documents and that the allegations can be proved by leading evidence
before the Court.
27. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
is not sitting as a Court of appeal over the aforesaid orders. Interference
would be warranted only where the orders suffer from manifest illegality,
perversity, patent error of jurisdiction or such infirmity as results in failure
of justice. A mere possibility of another view being taken on the question
whether investigation would be desirable is not sufficient to warrant
interference.
28. In the present case, both the learned Magistrate and the learned
ASJ have applied the settled principles governing exercise of power under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The conclusion that the Petitioner can substantiate
his allegations by leading evidence, with recourse to the process of the
Court wherever required, cannot be said to be perverse or legally
unsustainable.
CONCLUSION
29. It is also necessary to clarify that this Court has not examined the
truth or otherwise of the allegations relating to coercion, intimidation,
illegal confinement, extortion or the alleged misuse of police powers. No
opinion is being expressed on the merits of the complaint or on the
defence of the proposed accused persons. The only question examined is
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 11 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38

whether the refusal to direct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
calls for interference by this Court. For the reasons discussed hereinabove,
the answer is in the negative.
30. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or perversity in
the order dated 19.08.2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
or the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned ASJ-IV, North
District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, warranting interference in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
31. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of in the above terms.
32. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance and information.
33. It is clarified that nothing contained in the present judgment shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the complaint or
the truthfulness of the allegations made therein.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/RM
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1875/2025 Page 12 of 12
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:02:38