Mohd. Kashif v. Presence

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed challenging the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 2259 of 2024, Mohd. Kashif v. Suhail and others. By the said order, the learned Magistrate rejected an application moved under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking a direction for

registration of FIR.

2. The case arises out of a complaint made by the Applicant before the Station House Officer, Police Station Patel Nagar, alleging that the private respondents had taken an amount of ₹20,00,000/- from him and, when asked to return the same, had threatened to kill him and physically assaulted him.

3. It is alleged that no FIR was registered on the basis of this complaint. A representation was also submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Criminal Misc. Application No. 274 of 2025, Mohd. Kashif Vs State of Uttarakhand and ors. 1 Ashish Naithani J. Police, Dehradun. Upon alleged inaction by the police authorities, the Applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant argued that the allegations made in the complaint clearly disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, including criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and assault. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the material in its proper perspective and dismissed the application without calling for any inquiry or report from the concerned police station.

5. It was further contended that the conduct of the police authorities in failing to register the FIR, despite a complaint and subsequent representation, necessitated judicial intervention. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, to assert that registration of FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and reflects non-application of mind. It was argued that the learned Magistrate could not have summarily concluded that no cognizable offence was made out, particularly at the stage of considering an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, where the threshold for directing investigation is relatively low.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate had duly examined the allegations and recorded a finding that the dispute was of a purely private and financial nature, lacking the necessary ingredients to constitute a cognizable offence. Criminal Misc. Application No. 274 of 2025, Mohd. Kashif Vs State of Uttarakhand and ors. 2 Ashish Naithani J.

8. It was further argued that the allegations of threat and assault were vague, lacking in specific details or corroborating material such as medical documents or contemporaneous evidence. The conclusion drawn by the learned Magistrate, it was submitted, was a reasoned one and well within the scope of judicial discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC.

9. Learned counsel submitted that the scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is limited and should not be invoked to re- appreciate factual matters already considered by the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion.

10. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

11. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, committed any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, by holding that the complaint did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting registration of FIR.

12. It is well established that the power of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC is discretionary in nature. The said provision empowers the Magistrate to direct investigation by police in appropriate cases, where the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

13. However, it is equally settled that the Magistrate is not required to act as a mere post office. Before exercising such power, the Magistrate is expected to apply his mind to the contents of the complaint and the annexures and form a prima facie satisfaction that the information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence.

14. Such satisfaction need not be recorded in elaborate terms, but the reasons must be discernible from the order itself. Criminal Misc. Application No. 274 of 2025, Mohd. Kashif Vs State of Uttarakhand and ors. 3 Ashish Naithani J.

15. In the present case, the complaint was based on a financial transaction wherein the Applicant alleged that he had paid a sum of ₹20,00,000/- to the private respondents, and upon seeking repayment, was allegedly threatened with dire consequences and physically assaulted. The complaint was stated to have been submitted to the concerned police station as well as to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun. Still, no action was taken, prompting the Applicant to move the application under Section 156(3) CrPC.

16. A close reading of the complaint shows that while the transaction of money is described in considerable detail, the allegations of threat and physical assault are vague, lacking in particulars as to date, time, place, or specific acts.

17. No contemporaneous evidence, such as a medical certificate or independent witness account, was furnished to substantiate the claim of assault.

18. Moreover, there is no document to establish the existence of any enforceable legal obligation or agreement pursuant to which the money was paid. There is also no material to suggest that the private respondents acted with dishonest intent at the inception of the transaction.

19. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate was justified in scrutinising the allegations to assess whether they, even if accepted at face value, disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence.

20. Upon such assessment, the Magistrate concluded that the nature of the dispute appeared to be civil or contractual, and no ingredients of criminal intimidation or assault were prima facie made out. The dismissal of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC by the learned Criminal Misc. Application No. 274 of 2025, Mohd. Kashif Vs State of Uttarakhand and ors. 4 Ashish Naithani J. Magistrate is supported by cogent reasoning and cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary.

21. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the Applicant on the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, is misconceived in the facts of the present case. While the said decision does hold that registration of FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence, it also carves out exceptions where a preliminary inquiry may be conducted.

22. Such exceptions include commercial transactions, disputes of civil nature, or cases involving abnormal delay, among others. The present dispute, being of a purely monetary nature and lacking in foundational criminal elements, falls squarely within the categories where a Magistrate may justifiably decline to direct registration of FIR at the threshold.

23. It is equally settled that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC) is limited. The power to quash or set aside a judicial order is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in cases where there is a palpable abuse of process, manifest illegality, or miscarriage of justice. The revisiting of factual determinations by the Magistrate, particularly those rooted in a judicial exercise of discretion, is impermissible under the garb of inherent jurisdiction unless such findings are demonstrably perverse. ORDER In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated

18.09.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, reflects due application of mind and judicial discretion. The complaint did not present a case that warranted immediate police investigation without further inquiry. The findings recorded by the Magistrate are Criminal Misc. Application No. 274 of 2025, Mohd. Kashif Vs State of Uttarakhand and ors. 5 Ashish Naithani J. neither capricious nor unsustainable law. No exceptional circumstance has been made out so as to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, this Application is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:29.07.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 274 of 2025, Mohd. Kashif Vs State of Uttarakhand and ors. 6 Ashish Naithani J.