Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 13.01.2026.
+ CRL.M.C. 7853/2024
SOHAIL MALIK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Arunima Nair,
Mr. Sidhant Saraswat, Mr.
Siddhant Luthra, Ms. Vismita
Diwan, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan,
APP.
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun
Ruhil, Mr. Karan Chopra, Advs.
for R-2 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, [BNSS] , 2023 (erstwhile Section
482 of Cr.P.C.), seeking registration of FIR and for setting aside the
impugned order dated 24.05.2024, whereby, the learned Sessions
Judge was pleased to dismiss the Criminal Revision Petition bearing
No. 662/2023 and upheld the order dated 16.08.2023, passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing, the petitioner’s application under
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.] in Complaint
Case No. 1128/2023.
Brief facts:
2. Petitioner is an IRS Officer of 2010 Batch while Respondents
No. 2 & 3 are IAS Officers.
3. Case FIR No. 53/2023 dated 16.05.2023 under Section 354/354-
D/506/509 Indian Penal Code [I.P.C.] was registered on the complaint
of respondent No. 3 at Police Station Parliament Street on 16.05.2023
with allegations that petitioner had been stalking the complainant
unilaterally since 26.01.2023. She and her husband called the police.
Petitioner was apprehended from the spot and was taken to Police
Station Parliament Street. His mobile phone and an Archies Diary,
containing love messages were seized from the spot.
4. Petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2023 and granted bail on
20.05.2023. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against him and the matter is pending trial before the court.
5. Petitioner also lodged a complaint dated 16.05.2203, addressed
to the DCP, alleging commission of criminal offences against him by
respondents No. 2 to 4. Since no action was taken on such complaint,
he filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr. PC along with an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC, seeking direction for
registration of an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections
342/347/355/357/325/ 308/392/394/397/506/120-B/34 IPC and under
Sections 43/66/75 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and further
illegal act of insulting the national emblem of India, attracting
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
provisions of Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971 and
Section 124-A IPC.
6. As per allegations in complaint, petitioner came in contact with
respondent No. 3 during Covid-19 Pandemic in March-April, 2020,
both being involved in social work as a Covid Support Group. Over
the period of years from 2020 to 2023, there was regular
communication and coordination between them for social, charitable
and personal work. They became good friends and started
communicating and meeting each other frequently. The relationship
between them was cordial and many a times, gifts were exchanged
between the two. When respondent No. 2, who is the husband of
respondent No. 3, came to know about their friendship, he became
furious. He called the petitioner to meet him at Connaught Place near
Haldiram Restaurant. When the petitioner reached there, he was
abused by respondent No. 2 with cuss words and religious slurs and
threatened not to communicate with respondent No. 3. He forcibly
took the mobile phone of the petitioner and deleted the messages
exchanged between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner.
7. Respondents No. 2 & 3 visited the residence of petitioner 2-3
times in the month of April-May 2022 and during such visits,
respondents No. 2 would abuse the petitioner with religious slurs and
threatened to finish his career and kill his family members.
8. On 31.07.2022, respondents No. 2 & 3 again visited the rented
house of the petitioner. He was abused, threatened and beaten up,
thereby, causing fracture in his left thumb. Petitioner did not report the
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
incident as respondent No. 3 pleaded with the petitioner on WhatsApp
call and apologized on behalf of her husband and pleaded the
petitioner not to file any FIR against her and respondents No. 2.
9. After January 2023, respondent No. 3 again started sending
WhatsApp messages to the petitioner, sometimes inviting the
petitioner to Bihar Bhawan, where she was then posted as Resident
Commissioner. However, petitioner ignored and avoided replying to
the messages of respondent No. 3 on most of the times. He was
reluctant to meet respondent No. 3.
10. Respondent No. 3 later got posted in Krishi Bhawan. A few
days before 15.05.2023, petitioner received a message from
respondent No. 3, requesting him to meet her urgently as she was
having some family problem and health issues, for which, she wanted
the petitioner’s advice and also requested him to suggest a good
psychiatrist.
11. On 15.05.2023, petitioner went to the office of respondent No.
3. Since respondent No. 3 was not in the office, while petitioner was
waiting at the ground floor lobby, respondent No. 2 came there and
took him to the office of respondent No. 3 in Room No. 165 at first
floor.
12. As soon as petitioner and respondent No. 2 entered the office
room, respondent No. 2 locked the door from inside. Respondent No.
2 in the presence of respondent No. 3, abused the petitioner with
religious slurs. Respondent No. 2 then telephonically called
respondent No. 4, who came to the office room and then respondents
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
No. 2 & 4 started hitting the petitioner on his face and twisted his
hands and fingers, thereby, causing him injuries. Respondent No. 2
forcibly took out petitioner’s mobile phone from his pocket and when
the petitioner resisted, respondent No.2 slapped, kicked and hit the
petitioner. Respondent No. 2 snatched the petitioner’s government
identity card and threw it on the floor and stepped and trampled over
the identity card that had the national emblem printed on it.
13. Respondent No. 4 threatened to kill the petitioner with knife. He
was forced to reveal the password of his mobile phone. Respondents
No. 2 & 3 scrolled the petitioner’s mobile phone and deleted some
data from the phone. Petitioner was hit on his head and face with a
steel water bottle lying in the room. After sometime, some police
officials along with DCP in civil dress came and took the petitioner to
P.S. Parliament Street. Respondent No. 2 handed over the petitioner’s
mobile phone to the police officials along with the keys of petitioner’s
official car, which he had snatched from petitioner’s driver.
14. Upon receipt of the complaint, trial court directed the police to
file Action Taken Report. As per such report, no incriminating
evidence was found against respondents No. 2 to 4.
15. Vide order dated 16.08.2023, the trial court dismissed the
petitioner’s application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC but took
cognizance under Section 200 Cr. PC except for the offence under
Section 124-A IPC, granting him an opportunity to lead pre-
summoning evidence. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred revision
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
petition in Sessions Court but the same came to be dismissed by order
dated 24.05.2025.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
16. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared
for the petitioner, submitted that there are conflicting versions of the
incident dated 16.05.2023 and on the version of respondents No. 2 &
3, the police has registered the FIR and conducted investigation
without taking note of allegations made by the petitioner. It is
submitted that the investigation conducted by the police was one-sided
and was totally biased and unfair. It is argued that in view of the
conflicting version of the incident dated 16.05.2023, both versions
need to be holistically investigated, and for such purpose, there is a
necessity for registration of the FIR on the basis of allegations made in
the complaint of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned Senior
Counsel places reliance on the observations made by the Supreme
Court in paragraphs No. 43 & 45 in the case of Puneet Beriwala v.
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors . , Crl. Appeal No. 1834/2025 , which
are reproduced hereunder: -
43. Keeping in view the contradictory defences of the accused as
well as the registration and pendency of the cross FIRs, this Court
is of the view that the learned Single Judge should not have limited
the scope of investigation.
45. Even though the above decision was rendered in respect of trial
of cross cases, this Court is of the opinion that in cases involving
cross-FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if the investigation was
carried out in a comprehensive manner. After all, the object of the
investigation is the discovery of truth. In the present case, in view
of cross-FIRs, the investigating authority will conclude that either
the receipts in favour of the Appellant are forged and fabricated or
that the receipts are genuine. The complicity of Respondent Nos. 2
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
and 3 herein can only be ascertained once the investigation is
permitted to reach its logical conclusion.”
17. It is submitted that both the courts below failed to appreciate
that the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of
cognizable offence and there is overwhelming material available on
record to show the existence of a prima facie case, and therefore, the
matter requires investigation for search, seizure of material evidence
including collection of the call detail records, GPS mobile locations,
CCTV footage of various places and forensic analysis of the shirt of
the petitioner on which respondent No. 2 had spit. The investigation is
further required to identify and examine the available witnesses from
Krishi Bhawan. Further, the investigation is required to retrieve the
valuable evidentiary electronic data.
18. It is submitted that learned Revisional Court has erroneously
taken into consideration the ATR filed by the police stating therein
that no incriminating evidence has been found against the accused
persons in the inquiry and that the complaint has been filed for oblique
reasons and ulterior motives to create pressure upon the accused
persons who are complainants in the above-mentioned FIR.
19. It is argued that the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 suffers
from patent illegalities as the same is contrary and in violation and
disregard to various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and
various High Courts including this Court wherein the guidelines and
directions have been issued to the subordinate courts for registration of
an FIR in cases where a complaint discloses the commission of
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
cognizable offence. It is argued that the impugned order is clearly in
the teeth of such landmark judgments.
20. It is further argued that the assistance of the police is required
for the purpose of collecting the evidence, specially, the mobile phone
of respondent No. 3 to confirm the relationship between the petitioner
and respondent No. 3 and the fact that it was respondent No. 3 who
had called him at her office.
21. It is submitted that petitioner’s complaint ought to have been
treated on the same footing as that of respondent No. 3 and FIR should
have been ordered to be registered and investigated to ensure a fair
and impartial investigation into both versions of the incident.
Submissions of the State:
22 . Per contra, the learned APP for the State, while referring to the
Status Report, submits that respondent was continuously harassed and
stalked by the petitioner from January 2023 onwards, compelling her
to lodge the FIR. It has been submitted that the petitioner is now
attempting to misuse the process of law and exert pressure upon the
complainant by filing a counter complaint.
23. It is submitted that petitioner was apprehended from the spot on
16.05.2023 upon a call made by respondent No. 2, and during
investigation, his mobile phone, an Archies diary, containing love
messages and a flower intended for respondent no. 3 were seized. The
seizure memo records that phone was recovered directly from the
petitioner, who himself had given it to the police.
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
24. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer issued a
notice under Section 91 Cr. PC to one CIT Deepak Tiwari, inquiring
whether the petitioner had been assigned any official duty at Krishi
Bhawan or Bihar Bhawan between 01.02.2023 and 20.05.2023 and the
reply received was in the negative, indicating that his visits were
purely personal and amounted to stalking. Respondent no. 3, being a
senior lady officer in the Government of India, had initially refrained
from taking legal action to protect her and her husband’s reputation,
both being senior IAS officers, but later mustered courage to expose
the petitioner’s conduct, involving stalking and lewd messages.
25. It is further submitted that petitioner had himself reset his
mobile phone and attempted to tamper with medical evidence, as
reflected in the medical findings. On the complainant’s representation
disputing the petitioner’s MLC, a medical board of three doctors was
constituted, which opined that no conclusive opinion could be drawn
regarding petitioner’s alleged injuries. IO also obtained CCTV footage
from Krishi Bhawan and recorded statements of staff members, none
of whom confirmed any incident or screams on the date in question.
Therefore, it has been submitted that no evidence supports the
petitioner’s allegations, while the investigation into FIR No. 53/2023
is based on consistent and corroborated material, warranting no
interference or registration of a separate FIR.
Submissions of the Respondents No. 2 to 4:
26. The learned counsel, who appeared for respondents No. 2 to 4
submitted that as per the petitioner’s own complaint (Annexure P-7),
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
he alleged that he had sustained injuries during an altercation with
husband of respondent no. 3, yet no complaint was made by him at the
relevant time. It was submitted that the allegations made by the
petitioner in his complaint dated 16.05.2023 are wholly unbelievable
and appear to have been fabricated as an afterthought, only to counter
the FIR already registered against him.
27. It is argued that the impugned orders passed by the learned ASJ
as also by the learned MM have rightly appreciated the material on
record and dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 156(3)
Cr.PC. The impugned orders are well-reasoned, based on correct
appreciation of facts and law and do not call for any interference. It
has been further submitted that the petitioner’s complaint lacks prima
facie substance and was filed with the oblique motive of derailing the
ongoing investigation in FIR No. 53/2023. Hence, both the impugned
orders deserve to be upheld as they are sound in reasoning and
supported by the record.
Analysis and Conclusion
28. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the
material on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order
dated 24.05.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, upholding the
order dated 16.08.2023 of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The primary
grievance of the petitioner is that despite disclosing cognizable
offences, allegedly committed by respondents No. 2 to 4, no FIR has
been registered on his complaint.
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
29. The law in this regard is well settled. As and when any
information is received by a police officer about the alleged
commission of offence, which is cognizable, it is the duty of the police
officer to register an FIR. Sub Section (1) of Section 156 confers
power to the police to investigate a cognizable offence without the
order of the Magistrate. The police may investigate the cognizable
offence either on information under Section 154 Cr. PC or on their
own motion, on their own knowledge or from other reliable
information. If a person has the grievance that FIR has not been
registered by the police, the remedy is to approach the Superintendent
of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.PC or other police officer referred
to in Section 36 Cr.PC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of
Police or the officer referred to in Section 36, his grievance still
persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.PC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC. This statutory right to investigate
the cognizable offence cannot be interfered with or controlled by the
courts.
30. Sub Section (3) of Section 156 Cr. PC empowers the Magistrate
to direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the cognizable
offence but there is a restriction on the power of the Magistrate before
directing the police to investigate under sub Section (3), inasmuch as,
the Magistrate should form an opinion that the complaint filed by the
complainant before him discloses a cognizable offence. However, the
Magistrate must also ensure that this provision is not misused by the
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
complainants to get the police case registered in those cases which are
not very serious in nature and do not require the assistance of the
investigating agency for conducting investigation. The use of
expression “may” in sub Section (3) of Section 156 Cr. PC leaves no
room for doubt that the power conferred upon the Magistrate is
discretionary and he is not bound to direct investigation by police even
if the allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence. Thus, if in a given case, the Magistrate feels that
the matter does not require investigation by the police and can be
proved by the complainant himself without any assistance from the
police, in that case, he may instead of directing the investigation by
the police, straight away can take cognizance of the alleged offence
and proceed under Section 200 of the Code by examining the
complainant and his witnesses, if any. The Magistrate ought to direct
investigation by the police only where the assistance of the
investigating agency is necessary and the court feels that the cause of
justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police.
This position has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Skipper
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, 2001 (59) DRJ 129. The relevant paras
of the judgment read as under:-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 13.01.2026.
+ CRL.M.C. 7853/2024
SOHAIL MALIK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Arunima Nair,
Mr. Sidhant Saraswat, Mr.
Siddhant Luthra, Ms. Vismita
Diwan, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan,
APP.
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun
Ruhil, Mr. Karan Chopra, Advs.
for R-2 to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, [BNSS] , 2023 (erstwhile Section
482 of Cr.P.C.), seeking registration of FIR and for setting aside the
impugned order dated 24.05.2024, whereby, the learned Sessions
Judge was pleased to dismiss the Criminal Revision Petition bearing
No. 662/2023 and upheld the order dated 16.08.2023, passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing, the petitioner’s application under
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.] in Complaint
Case No. 1128/2023.
Brief facts:
2. Petitioner is an IRS Officer of 2010 Batch while Respondents
No. 2 & 3 are IAS Officers.
3. Case FIR No. 53/2023 dated 16.05.2023 under Section 354/354-
D/506/509 Indian Penal Code [I.P.C.] was registered on the complaint
of respondent No. 3 at Police Station Parliament Street on 16.05.2023
with allegations that petitioner had been stalking the complainant
unilaterally since 26.01.2023. She and her husband called the police.
Petitioner was apprehended from the spot and was taken to Police
Station Parliament Street. His mobile phone and an Archies Diary,
containing love messages were seized from the spot.
4. Petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2023 and granted bail on
20.05.2023. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against him and the matter is pending trial before the court.
5. Petitioner also lodged a complaint dated 16.05.2203, addressed
to the DCP, alleging commission of criminal offences against him by
respondents No. 2 to 4. Since no action was taken on such complaint,
he filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr. PC along with an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC, seeking direction for
registration of an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections
342/347/355/357/325/ 308/392/394/397/506/120-B/34 IPC and under
Sections 43/66/75 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and further
illegal act of insulting the national emblem of India, attracting
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
provisions of Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971 and
Section 124-A IPC.
6. As per allegations in complaint, petitioner came in contact with
respondent No. 3 during Covid-19 Pandemic in March-April, 2020,
both being involved in social work as a Covid Support Group. Over
the period of years from 2020 to 2023, there was regular
communication and coordination between them for social, charitable
and personal work. They became good friends and started
communicating and meeting each other frequently. The relationship
between them was cordial and many a times, gifts were exchanged
between the two. When respondent No. 2, who is the husband of
respondent No. 3, came to know about their friendship, he became
furious. He called the petitioner to meet him at Connaught Place near
Haldiram Restaurant. When the petitioner reached there, he was
abused by respondent No. 2 with cuss words and religious slurs and
threatened not to communicate with respondent No. 3. He forcibly
took the mobile phone of the petitioner and deleted the messages
exchanged between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner.
7. Respondents No. 2 & 3 visited the residence of petitioner 2-3
times in the month of April-May 2022 and during such visits,
respondents No. 2 would abuse the petitioner with religious slurs and
threatened to finish his career and kill his family members.
8. On 31.07.2022, respondents No. 2 & 3 again visited the rented
house of the petitioner. He was abused, threatened and beaten up,
thereby, causing fracture in his left thumb. Petitioner did not report the
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
incident as respondent No. 3 pleaded with the petitioner on WhatsApp
call and apologized on behalf of her husband and pleaded the
petitioner not to file any FIR against her and respondents No. 2.
9. After January 2023, respondent No. 3 again started sending
WhatsApp messages to the petitioner, sometimes inviting the
petitioner to Bihar Bhawan, where she was then posted as Resident
Commissioner. However, petitioner ignored and avoided replying to
the messages of respondent No. 3 on most of the times. He was
reluctant to meet respondent No. 3.
10. Respondent No. 3 later got posted in Krishi Bhawan. A few
days before 15.05.2023, petitioner received a message from
respondent No. 3, requesting him to meet her urgently as she was
having some family problem and health issues, for which, she wanted
the petitioner’s advice and also requested him to suggest a good
psychiatrist.
11. On 15.05.2023, petitioner went to the office of respondent No.
3. Since respondent No. 3 was not in the office, while petitioner was
waiting at the ground floor lobby, respondent No. 2 came there and
took him to the office of respondent No. 3 in Room No. 165 at first
floor.
12. As soon as petitioner and respondent No. 2 entered the office
room, respondent No. 2 locked the door from inside. Respondent No.
2 in the presence of respondent No. 3, abused the petitioner with
religious slurs. Respondent No. 2 then telephonically called
respondent No. 4, who came to the office room and then respondents
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
No. 2 & 4 started hitting the petitioner on his face and twisted his
hands and fingers, thereby, causing him injuries. Respondent No. 2
forcibly took out petitioner’s mobile phone from his pocket and when
the petitioner resisted, respondent No.2 slapped, kicked and hit the
petitioner. Respondent No. 2 snatched the petitioner’s government
identity card and threw it on the floor and stepped and trampled over
the identity card that had the national emblem printed on it.
13. Respondent No. 4 threatened to kill the petitioner with knife. He
was forced to reveal the password of his mobile phone. Respondents
No. 2 & 3 scrolled the petitioner’s mobile phone and deleted some
data from the phone. Petitioner was hit on his head and face with a
steel water bottle lying in the room. After sometime, some police
officials along with DCP in civil dress came and took the petitioner to
P.S. Parliament Street. Respondent No. 2 handed over the petitioner’s
mobile phone to the police officials along with the keys of petitioner’s
official car, which he had snatched from petitioner’s driver.
14. Upon receipt of the complaint, trial court directed the police to
file Action Taken Report. As per such report, no incriminating
evidence was found against respondents No. 2 to 4.
15. Vide order dated 16.08.2023, the trial court dismissed the
petitioner’s application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC but took
cognizance under Section 200 Cr. PC except for the offence under
Section 124-A IPC, granting him an opportunity to lead pre-
summoning evidence. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred revision
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
petition in Sessions Court but the same came to be dismissed by order
dated 24.05.2025.
Submissions of the Petitioner:
16. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel, who appeared
for the petitioner, submitted that there are conflicting versions of the
incident dated 16.05.2023 and on the version of respondents No. 2 &
3, the police has registered the FIR and conducted investigation
without taking note of allegations made by the petitioner. It is
submitted that the investigation conducted by the police was one-sided
and was totally biased and unfair. It is argued that in view of the
conflicting version of the incident dated 16.05.2023, both versions
need to be holistically investigated, and for such purpose, there is a
necessity for registration of the FIR on the basis of allegations made in
the complaint of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned Senior
Counsel places reliance on the observations made by the Supreme
Court in paragraphs No. 43 & 45 in the case of Puneet Beriwala v.
State of NCT of Delhi & Ors . , Crl. Appeal No. 1834/2025 , which
are reproduced hereunder: -
43. Keeping in view the contradictory defences of the accused as
well as the registration and pendency of the cross FIRs, this Court
is of the view that the learned Single Judge should not have limited
the scope of investigation.
45. Even though the above decision was rendered in respect of trial
of cross cases, this Court is of the opinion that in cases involving
cross-FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if the investigation was
carried out in a comprehensive manner. After all, the object of the
investigation is the discovery of truth. In the present case, in view
of cross-FIRs, the investigating authority will conclude that either
the receipts in favour of the Appellant are forged and fabricated or
that the receipts are genuine. The complicity of Respondent Nos. 2
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
and 3 herein can only be ascertained once the investigation is
permitted to reach its logical conclusion.”
17. It is submitted that both the courts below failed to appreciate
that the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of
cognizable offence and there is overwhelming material available on
record to show the existence of a prima facie case, and therefore, the
matter requires investigation for search, seizure of material evidence
including collection of the call detail records, GPS mobile locations,
CCTV footage of various places and forensic analysis of the shirt of
the petitioner on which respondent No. 2 had spit. The investigation is
further required to identify and examine the available witnesses from
Krishi Bhawan. Further, the investigation is required to retrieve the
valuable evidentiary electronic data.
18. It is submitted that learned Revisional Court has erroneously
taken into consideration the ATR filed by the police stating therein
that no incriminating evidence has been found against the accused
persons in the inquiry and that the complaint has been filed for oblique
reasons and ulterior motives to create pressure upon the accused
persons who are complainants in the above-mentioned FIR.
19. It is argued that the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 suffers
from patent illegalities as the same is contrary and in violation and
disregard to various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and
various High Courts including this Court wherein the guidelines and
directions have been issued to the subordinate courts for registration of
an FIR in cases where a complaint discloses the commission of
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
cognizable offence. It is argued that the impugned order is clearly in
the teeth of such landmark judgments.
20. It is further argued that the assistance of the police is required
for the purpose of collecting the evidence, specially, the mobile phone
of respondent No. 3 to confirm the relationship between the petitioner
and respondent No. 3 and the fact that it was respondent No. 3 who
had called him at her office.
21. It is submitted that petitioner’s complaint ought to have been
treated on the same footing as that of respondent No. 3 and FIR should
have been ordered to be registered and investigated to ensure a fair
and impartial investigation into both versions of the incident.
Submissions of the State:
22 . Per contra, the learned APP for the State, while referring to the
Status Report, submits that respondent was continuously harassed and
stalked by the petitioner from January 2023 onwards, compelling her
to lodge the FIR. It has been submitted that the petitioner is now
attempting to misuse the process of law and exert pressure upon the
complainant by filing a counter complaint.
23. It is submitted that petitioner was apprehended from the spot on
16.05.2023 upon a call made by respondent No. 2, and during
investigation, his mobile phone, an Archies diary, containing love
messages and a flower intended for respondent no. 3 were seized. The
seizure memo records that phone was recovered directly from the
petitioner, who himself had given it to the police.
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
24. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer issued a
notice under Section 91 Cr. PC to one CIT Deepak Tiwari, inquiring
whether the petitioner had been assigned any official duty at Krishi
Bhawan or Bihar Bhawan between 01.02.2023 and 20.05.2023 and the
reply received was in the negative, indicating that his visits were
purely personal and amounted to stalking. Respondent no. 3, being a
senior lady officer in the Government of India, had initially refrained
from taking legal action to protect her and her husband’s reputation,
both being senior IAS officers, but later mustered courage to expose
the petitioner’s conduct, involving stalking and lewd messages.
25. It is further submitted that petitioner had himself reset his
mobile phone and attempted to tamper with medical evidence, as
reflected in the medical findings. On the complainant’s representation
disputing the petitioner’s MLC, a medical board of three doctors was
constituted, which opined that no conclusive opinion could be drawn
regarding petitioner’s alleged injuries. IO also obtained CCTV footage
from Krishi Bhawan and recorded statements of staff members, none
of whom confirmed any incident or screams on the date in question.
Therefore, it has been submitted that no evidence supports the
petitioner’s allegations, while the investigation into FIR No. 53/2023
is based on consistent and corroborated material, warranting no
interference or registration of a separate FIR.
Submissions of the Respondents No. 2 to 4:
26. The learned counsel, who appeared for respondents No. 2 to 4
submitted that as per the petitioner’s own complaint (Annexure P-7),
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
he alleged that he had sustained injuries during an altercation with
husband of respondent no. 3, yet no complaint was made by him at the
relevant time. It was submitted that the allegations made by the
petitioner in his complaint dated 16.05.2023 are wholly unbelievable
and appear to have been fabricated as an afterthought, only to counter
the FIR already registered against him.
27. It is argued that the impugned orders passed by the learned ASJ
as also by the learned MM have rightly appreciated the material on
record and dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 156(3)
Cr.PC. The impugned orders are well-reasoned, based on correct
appreciation of facts and law and do not call for any interference. It
has been further submitted that the petitioner’s complaint lacks prima
facie substance and was filed with the oblique motive of derailing the
ongoing investigation in FIR No. 53/2023. Hence, both the impugned
orders deserve to be upheld as they are sound in reasoning and
supported by the record.
Analysis and Conclusion
28. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the
material on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order
dated 24.05.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, upholding the
order dated 16.08.2023 of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The primary
grievance of the petitioner is that despite disclosing cognizable
offences, allegedly committed by respondents No. 2 to 4, no FIR has
been registered on his complaint.
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
29. The law in this regard is well settled. As and when any
information is received by a police officer about the alleged
commission of offence, which is cognizable, it is the duty of the police
officer to register an FIR. Sub Section (1) of Section 156 confers
power to the police to investigate a cognizable offence without the
order of the Magistrate. The police may investigate the cognizable
offence either on information under Section 154 Cr. PC or on their
own motion, on their own knowledge or from other reliable
information. If a person has the grievance that FIR has not been
registered by the police, the remedy is to approach the Superintendent
of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.PC or other police officer referred
to in Section 36 Cr.PC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of
Police or the officer referred to in Section 36, his grievance still
persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.PC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC. This statutory right to investigate
the cognizable offence cannot be interfered with or controlled by the
courts.
30. Sub Section (3) of Section 156 Cr. PC empowers the Magistrate
to direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the cognizable
offence but there is a restriction on the power of the Magistrate before
directing the police to investigate under sub Section (3), inasmuch as,
the Magistrate should form an opinion that the complaint filed by the
complainant before him discloses a cognizable offence. However, the
Magistrate must also ensure that this provision is not misused by the
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
complainants to get the police case registered in those cases which are
not very serious in nature and do not require the assistance of the
investigating agency for conducting investigation. The use of
expression “may” in sub Section (3) of Section 156 Cr. PC leaves no
room for doubt that the power conferred upon the Magistrate is
discretionary and he is not bound to direct investigation by police even
if the allegations made in the complaint disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence. Thus, if in a given case, the Magistrate feels that
the matter does not require investigation by the police and can be
proved by the complainant himself without any assistance from the
police, in that case, he may instead of directing the investigation by
the police, straight away can take cognizance of the alleged offence
and proceed under Section 200 of the Code by examining the
complainant and his witnesses, if any. The Magistrate ought to direct
investigation by the police only where the assistance of the
investigating agency is necessary and the court feels that the cause of
justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police.
This position has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Skipper
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. State, 2001 (59) DRJ 129. The relevant paras
of the judgment read as under:-
| “ | 7. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a |
|---|---|
| Magistrate to direct the police to register a case and initiate | |
| 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 orders under Section 156(3) of the Code. | |
| The discretion ought to be exercised after proper application of |
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
| mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view | |
|---|---|
| that the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant | |
| himself may not be in a position to collect and produce evidence | |
| before the Court and interests of justice demand that the police | |
| should step in to help the complainant. The police assistance can | |
| be taken by a Magistrate even under Sec. 202(1) of the Code after | |
| taking cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under | |
| Chapter XV of the Code as held by Apex Court in 2001 (1) Supreme | |
| page 129 titled “Suresh Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh & | |
| Ors.” |
| 10. Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and controlling | |
|---|---|
| the arbitrariness on the part of the police authorities in the matter | |
| of registration of FIRs and taking up investigations, even in those | |
| cases where the same are warranted. The Section empower the | |
| Magistrate to issue directions in this regard but this provision | |
| should not be permitted to be misused by the complainant to get | |
| police cases registered even in those cases which are not very | |
| serious in nature and the Magistrate himself can hold enquiry | |
| under Chapter XV and proceed against the accused if required. | |
| Therefore a Magistrate, must apply his mind before passing an | |
| order under Section 156(3) of the Code and must not pass these | |
| orders mechanically on the mere asking by the complainant. These | |
| powers ought to be exercised primarily in those cases where the | |
| allegations are quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of | |
| complaint or custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for | |
| some recovery of article or discovery of fact. | ” |
31. That being so, the Magistrate is not expected to mechanically
direct the investigation by the police without first examining whether
in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State
machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the
complaint are straight forward and simple, the court may straight away
proceed to conduct the trial. If the Magistrate decides to proceed under
Section 200 Cr. PC, then also, the Magistrate has the power to call for
a police report before issuing the process under Section 202 Cr. PC.
The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Guru Dutt
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
Prabhu & Ors. Vs. M.S. Krishna Bhat & Ors. 1999 Crl. LJ 3909 ,
expressed the fear that if every complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.
PC is sent for police investigation without application of mind, there is
likelihood that the provision would be used as a tool of harassment at
the hands of unscrupulous complainant and the provision can be
highly misused if orders are passed under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC in a
routine manner, even where a complaint is filed under Section 200 Cr.
PC.
32. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, the Court finds that the identity of the alleged
accused persons is known to the petitioner. Medical examination of
the petitioner has already been conducted. Copy of the MLC is
available with him. Status report reveals that statements of staff
members of Krishi Bhawan have also been recorded and mobile phone
of petitioner seized by police. Most of the evidence is thus already
available with the petitioner or the police and can be summoned by the
petitioner at an appropriate stage. The impugned order dated
24.05.2024 also takes note that all evidence relied upon by the
petitioner is within his control and the accused persons are known,
rendering custodial investigation unnecessary. Given that the alleged
incident occurred over a year ago, the Court observed that no
additional material could likely be obtained by the investigating
agency beyond what the petitioner can himself produce. It was
therefore, held that no useful purpose would be served by directing the
police investigation at this stage. The Trial Court having already taken
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. noted that police assistance
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. could be sought later if required. It further
recorded that CCTV footage near the alleged site has been preserved,
petitioner’s MLC/discharge summery is on record and he may
examine the doctor during pre-summoning evidence. Consequently,
the Court rightly concluded that there was no need for police
investigation at this stage.
33. Interestingly, in his petition, petitioner himself has expressed
doubts on the fairness of the investigation by the police, at the same
time, he is asking for investigation to be conducted by the same
agency. The trial court has already taken cognizance of the offence on
the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner in his complaint. If
during evidence of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. PC the trial
court still considers it expedient for the ends of justice, it may invoke
the provision of Section 202 Cr. PC for taking assistance of the police
for collecting evidence.
34. Hence, considering the nature of allegations made by the
petitioner in his complaint filed before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, this Court is of the considered view that the learned
Magistrate had exercised his judicial discretion properly and in
accordance with law by declining the request of the petitioner to make
over the investigation to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code.
35. The judgment of Puneet Beriwala ( supra ) is not applicable in
the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, the decision in
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47
the aforesaid case was rendered in respect of trial of cases involving
cross FIRs.
36. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the well reasoned and justified orders passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Session Judge. Both
the courts below have correctly appreciated that petitioner’s complaint
does not warrant registration of separate FIR. Thus no interference is
called for by this Court.
37. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
th
JANUARY 13 , 2026/na
CRL.M.C. 7853/2024 Page 16 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:13.01.2026
19:31:47