Priyanka Bindlish Singhal vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

$~96
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
# CNR No. DLHC010536742026
Date of Decision : 05.11.2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026, Crl.M.A.34919/2026
PRIYANKA BINDLISH SINGHAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak K. Bansal, Ms. Yogita
Bansal, Ms. Priyanka, Advs. along
with Petitioner- In Person
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya (ASC)
along with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Adv.
SI Sonika Chaudhary (P.S. Pandav
Nagar)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 ( pari materia to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973), the petitioner, who is the complainant in FIR No.
154/2019, dated 23.04.2019, registered at P.S. Pandav Nagar, East Delhi,
under Sections 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeks a
direction that the investigation be personally reviewed and effectively
supervised by the DCP, East District, so that outstanding material
investigative steps are taken and the investigation is brought to an
expeditious and lawful conclusion.
2. It is noticed that the petitioner’s application for monitoring the
investigation, stated to be filed in December 2023, has been pending before

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 1 of 9

the trial Court.
3. On 30.01.2024, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the Station
House Officer (SHO) to ensure filing of the Action Taken Report
(hereinafter “ ATR ”) and the appearance of the Investigating Officer (IO)
with the police file. The said order reads as under:
“ IO absent.
No status report received.
Issue notice to SHO concerned to ensure filing of ATR on
14.02.2024 and appearance of IO with police file.
Copy of this order be sent alongwith notice. ”
4. On 07.03.2025, i.e. , after more than a year, an interim ATR was filed,
and further time was sought for filing the final ATR. Thereafter, vide order
dated 10.07.2025, the following was directed:
“ Parcha yadasht of judicial file today. Ahlmad to trace out the same
on next date.
Interim status report has been filed by the IO concerned, seeking
more time.
Interim ATR copy has been supplied to the complainant.
This is the monitoring application filed by the complainant stating
that no investigation has been done since last 6 years after
registration of FIR.
The replied filed by the IO also shows that no investigation has been
done in the present matter by the IO concerned in last 6 years. It
appears that IO concerned is not interested in investigating the
present matter.
Even the SHO concerned has forwarded the present status report
without any noting and direction to the IO to conduct the
investigation.
With this observation, I deem fit to issue notice to ACP concerned
and SHO concerned to appear in person along with IO and police
file and file a detailed written report alongwith the documents, and
investigation yet to be done and investigation done till date.
Today also IO is absent. ”
5. On 01.08.2025, certain further directions were issued by the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 2 of 9

concerned Court. The order of the said date reads as under:
“ Stage: This is the monitoring application filed by the complainant
stating that no investigation has been done since last 6 years after
registration of FIR.
Proceedings: Interim status report has been filed by the IO
concerned, seeking more time.
- Interim ATR copy has been supplied to the complainant. The
replies filed by the IO also shows that no investigation has been
done in the present matter by the IO concerned in last 6 years.
- The SHO and the IO had appeared stating that the bank officials
have not respondent by supplying the documents of re-activation of
the bank account, which is through the application of the accused
as per the complaint of the complainant. Other documents have
already been received.
- Ld. counsel for the complainant has vehemently objected on the
delay of the police mechanism as no steps have been taken by the
police officials for collection of sample handwriting of the accused
person and the complainant for preserving the same and for
purpose of forensic. He has also stated that the police officials have
not issued warrants for compliance from the bank despite the bank
officials himself being a suspect.
Order: Having perused the record, following directions are made:
- The IO is directed to take appropriate steps to take sample
handwriting and signature of all the accused persons suspected in
the allegations and also of the complainant.
- IO is also directed to collate the list of documents already
received from the bank and documents not received from the bank
and take appropriate coercive action to seek documents from the
bank.
- The IO is also directed to take appropriate action for
investigation in the role of alleged bank official, if any.
- The IO is also directed to file written compliance and filed written
status report with respect to preparation of material for the
purpose of forwarding the same for FSL.
- The IO has to clearly write the report, if there is any non-
compliance of all the directions.
- The IO is also directed to collect the evidence by way of
examining the complainant and other witnesses from the bank and
record their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In case, the
same is not done, written compliance report shall be given to this

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 3 of 9

court to explain what prevented the IO in doing so.
- This is last opportunity granted to the IO and SHO concerned to
investigate in the present matter, failing which appropriate order
will be passed seeking compliance from the higher authority. ”

6. Finally, vide a detailed order dated 17.02.2026, the learned Magistrate

requested the ACP concerned to review the file, call for an explanation of
the delay and specific reports on the bank investigation, forensic
examination, and recovery. The said order reads as under:
“ 1. This is an application seeking monitoring of the investigation in
FIR No. 154/2019. An interim status report has been filed on behalf
of the IO seeking more time.
2. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has expressed serious grievance
that despite the lapse of nearly seven years since the registration of
the FIR, the investigation remains inconclusive. It is submitted that
neither has any recovery been effected, nor has the custodial
interrogation of the accused been deemed necessary by the IO. Ld.
Counsel relies upon the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409, specifically
paras 17, 18 & 24, and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant
Yashwant Dhage & Ors., urging this Court to exercise its powers to
ensure a proper investigation.
3. Perusal of the record reveals that the investigation appears to be
moving at a snail's pace. The reply filed by the IO is conspicuously
silent on material aspects, specifically regarding the examination of
bank witnesses and the collection of evidence related to the
dormant account. Furthermore, while the IO states that the
complainant did not provide specimen signatures, it is noted that
the IO has not resorted to the procedure prescribed under Section
311A Cr.P.C. or sought the leave of the Court to obtain such
signatures in accordance with law.
4. It is settled law that while this Court cannot interfere with the
manner of investigation or direct the police to arrest a specific
person or file a charge sheet in a particular manner, the Magistrate
is the guardian of the investigation and has the duty to ensure that
the investigation is fair, proper, and not a mere formality. The
inordinate delay of 7 years in a matter of this nature requires
justification.
5. In light of the above, and to ensure that the investigation is

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 4 of 9

brought to a logical conclusion expeditiously, the following
directions are issued to the ACP concerned (Pandav Nagar/East)
and the SHO, P.S. Pandav Nagar:
(a) Liberty to Appoint Additional IO: The ACP concerned is
requested to personally review the case file. Considering the
vintage of the case and the volume of pending investigation, the
ACP is at liberty to appoint an additional IO or constitute a
dedicated team to assist the present IO, if deemed necessary, to
facilitate a speedy and professional investigation.
(b) Report on Delay & Non-Filing of Charge Sheet: The ACP/SHO
shall file a detailed written explanation on the next date of hearing,
clarifying the specific reasons for the delay of over 6 years in
concluding the investigation. The report must specifically address
what impediments, if any, are preventing the filing of the Final
Report/Charge Sheet.
(c) Status of Bank Investigation: The IO is directed to file a specific
status report detailing the steps taken regarding the "dormant
account." The report must clarify:
Whether the re-opening form and other relevant documents have
been seized and sent to the FSL. (The current report only mentions
the account opening form).
Why the statements of relevant bank officials have not been
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. to date.
(d) Aspect of Recovery: The IO shall explain in the status report
what efforts have been made regarding the recovery of the case
property (money and jewellery) and if no recovery has been
effected, the reasons for the same must be elucidated.
(e) Specimen Signatures: If the specimen signatures of the
complainant are required for the purpose of investigation, the IO is
directed to move an appropriate application before the Court to
obtain the same in accordance with the law, ensuring the sanctity
of the process.
6. The IO is directed to appear in person on the next date of
hearing along with the complete police file (CD) and the Specific
Status Report answering the queries raised above.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the ACP (East) and SHO P.S.
Pandav Nagar for necessary compliance and supervision. ”
7. The legal position is well settled that where proper investigation is not
being done, the remedy lies before the concerned Magistrate. With regard to

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 5 of 9

this, a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P. , (2008) 2 SCC 409 , wherein it was observed as under:
“ 11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a
grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under
Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of
Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing.
Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that
either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it
no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person
to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the
learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under
Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can
direct the FIR to be registered and
also can direct a proper
investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the
aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The
Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the
investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
*
13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v.
State of Delhi [(2007) 12 SCC 641 : JT (2007) 10 SC 585] (JT vide
para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been
registered and
even if the police has made the investigation, or is
actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person
feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate
under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he
can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and
pass such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper
investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section
156(3) CrPC.
*
Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the
police performing its duties under Chapter XII CrPC. In cases
where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of
investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he
can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly,
and can monitor the same.
15.
*
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include
all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring
a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 6 of 9

of ordering a proper investigation if the
Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been
done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) CrPC,
though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will
include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a
proper investigation.
registration of an FIR and
*
24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view
that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an
implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC to
order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer
in charge of the police station concerned to hold a proper
investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be
necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including
monitoring the same.
Even though these powers have not been
expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) CrPC, we are of the opinion
that they are implied in the above provision. ”
(emphasis supplied)
8. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate is already seized of the
petitioner’s application and has issued detailed directions as noticed
aforesaid. The grievance of the petitioner is that those directions are not
being complied with. It would be apposite to make reference to the Supreme
Court’s decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar
,
, wherein the Court observed as under:
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511
“ 14.3. Just recently, a bench of three Judges of this Court in
Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P., (including one of us,
Sanjay Karol J.) after considering number of pronouncements,
culled out the features of fair trial. The third point mentioned
therein is important here. It reads, “Process of investigation and
trial must be completed with promptitude.
”. ”
(emphasis supplied)
9. Further, the Supreme Court in Sahil Abdulsattar Mansuri v.
Safimahamad Fafirbhai Mansuri , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1073 , noted as

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 7 of 9

follows:
“ 12. In the present factual matrix, nearly two decades have passed
since the initiation of the complaint by the original complainant.
However, it is a matter of serious concern that despite the lapse of
such an inordinate period of time the investigation is yet to reach
any meaningful conclusion. From a bare perusal of the record, it is
evident that the original complainant had run from pillar to post,
for filing of a chargesheet in connection with his complaint, but to
no avail.
13. This Court is of the view that it is incumbent upon
constitutional courts to not remain mute spectators, when such
prolonged investigations are brought to its notice. Therefore, in
such peculiar circumstances, the High Court ought to have
exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene in the present
matter.
”
(emphasis supplied)
10. Considering that the FIR has been under investigation since 2019, the
following directions are issued in aid of the proceedings before the learned
Magistrate:
a) The DCP (East-District) shall review and supervise the
investigation in FIR No. 154/2019, dated 23.04.2019, registered
at P.S. Pandav Nagar, East Delhi, and ensure compliance with
the order dated 17.07.2026 and other orders that may be passed
by the learned Magistrate; and
b) The learned Magistrate shall take up the petitioner’s application
on the date fixed and pass appropriate orders.
11. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court if the aforesaid

directions are not complied with.
12. The petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of in the
above terms.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 8 of 9

13. Order Dasti .
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/ uk/vk



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:05.11.2026
19:11:58
W.P.(CRL) 3472/2026 Page 9 of 9