[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Anil Kumar Garg vs State Of N C T Of Delhi & Ors on 23 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2488/2023
ANIL KUMAR GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner through VC.
versus
STATE OF N C T OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for the
State.
SI Sargam, PS: Adarsh Nagar and
Insp. Anil Malik.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 23.07.2025
1. The present criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 seeks setting aside of the order dated 23rd March, 2023
passed by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS) District North, Rohini in
Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/2023 titled “Anil Kumar Garg vs. State
of NCT of Delhi“. By the said order, the Sessions Court dismissed the
revision preferred by the Petitioner, and upheld the order of the Trial Court
dated 5th November, 2022, dismissing the Petitioner’s application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in Complaint Case No. 4487/2019.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present
1
“Cr.P.C”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:37:12
petition, are as follows:
2.1 Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint, alleging that on 9th May, 2018,
the Petitioner publicly abused him and removed his name from the
foundation stone of a temple. Thereafter, the Petitioner was arrested under
Section 107/151 of Cr.P.C vide Kalandra bearing DD No. 51-A as a
preventive measure. However, during the trial before the Special Executive
Magistrate, Respondent No. 1 retracted his statement made to the police,
leading to the discharge of the Petitioner on 10th November, 2018.
2.2 The Petitioner claims that Respondent No. 1 falsely implicated him in
the aforesaid case to exert pressure on him to settle FIR No. 171/2014,
where the Petitioner is a witness. In response, the Petitioner submitted
multiple complaints to senior police officials, however no action was taken.
Consequently, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, seeking directions for registration of an FIR
against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
2.3 The Trial Court, vide order dated 5th November, 2022, dismissed the
said application, holding that the complaint was not maintainable in view of
Section 195 Cr.P.C. The Court observed that under the said provision, a
complaint with respect to an alleged false statement can only be instituted by
the Court before which such a statement was made, and since no such
complaint had been filed by the concerned Court in the present case, the
Petitioner’s application was not maintainable.
2.4 Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition before the
Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 23rd March, 2023. In
the said order, the Sessions Court observed that a Magistrate is not
mandatorily bound to direct investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:37:12
merely upon disclosure of a cognizable offence by the complainant. The
Court further took note of the statutory bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C.,
and held that, in view of the said provision, registration of an FIR in the
present case was legally impermissible.
2.5 Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following prayers:
a. Allow the present Writ Petition of Certiorari, thereby quashing the
impugned order passed by Ld. Special Judge (NDPS), North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi vide Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/2023 dated
23.03.2023;
b. Allow the present Writ Petition of Certiorari 1 thereby quashing the
impugned order passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi vide Complaint Case No. 4887/2019 dated 05. l I
.2022;
e. Allow the present Writ Petition or Mandamus, thereby directing the
Respondent No. I to register an FIR and carry out investigation under
Section 182, 191, 192,193,211, 195-A, 120-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code,
I 860 in relation to the offence committed by the Respondents number 2
to 4;
d. Any other order(s) or direction(s) which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case
may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the
Respondents.
3. In support of these prayers, the Petitioner raises the following
contentions:
3.1 The State/Respondent No. 1 failed to discharge its statutory duty to
protect the Petitioner as a public witness in FIR No. 171/2014 from the
illegal acts perpetrated by Respondents No. 2 to 4. Respondents No. 2 to 4
hatched a criminal conspiracy against the Petitioner by falsely implicating
him in fabricated criminal proceedings.
3.2 The Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court erred in erroneously
invoking the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., as there exists noThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:37:12
prescribed bar in the scheme of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C on registering
an FIR for offences under Sections 191/192/193/195-A/211 of IPC. In
support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgement of the
Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Raj Singh & Anr.2
4. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the Petitioner
as well as perused the record. The primary grievance of the Petitioner
pertains to the alleged failure of the Respondent authorities to register an
FIR based on his allegations of false implication by Respondent No. 2. In
this context, the Trial Court, in its order dated 5th November, 2022, observed
that the complaint filed by the Petitioner was not maintainable in view of the
bar contained under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. For ease of reference, the
said provision is extracted below:
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for
offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given
in evidence.– (1) No Court shall take cognizance–
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both
inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of
some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence
is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in
any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under
section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence
is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or
the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer
of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some2
(1998) 2 SCC 391.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:37:12
other Court to which that Court is subordinate.]”
5. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that a
complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. can only be instituted by the court
before which the alleged offence (such as giving false evidence, as alleged
in this case) was committed, in relation to proceedings before that court. In
the present case, the Petitioner has alleged that Respondent No. 2 made a
false statement before the Special Executive Magistrate. Accordingly, it is
the Special Executive Magistrate who was the competent authority to file a
complaint in writing, if so warranted. As such, the Metropolitan Magistrate,
before whom the present complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed,
did not have the jurisdiction to entertain or act upon the complaint in light of
the statutory bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
6. The Petitioner further contended that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. does
not prohibit the registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 191, 192,
193, 195-A, and 211 of the IPC, and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have
directed the registration of an FIR against Respondent No. 2 under these
provisions. In this regard, the Revisional Court, relying on various
judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, correctly observed
that a Magistrate is not obligated to direct a police investigation under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. merely because a cognizable offence is disclosed in
the complaint. The power conferred under this provision is discretionary and
must be exercised judiciously, having regard to the nature and gravity of the
allegations, and the availability of prima facie material in support thereof. In
the present case, the Petitioner’s complaint was based solely on oral
allegations, unsupported by any documentary or scientific evidence. In such
circumstances, both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court rightly
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:37:12
declined to order an investigation or direct the registration of an FIR under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
7. The Petitioner has also argued that the preventive proceedings
initiated against him by way of a Kalandra were based on false allegations,
particularly as Respondent No. 2 had subsequently retracted his statement
before the Trial Court, ultimately resulting in the Petitioner’s discharge. In
this regard, the Revisional Court rightly noted that the discharge order relied
upon by the Petitioner was not passed on merit. Instead, the proceedings
were dropped on technical grounds under Section 116(6) of CrPC, which
provides for automatic termination of proceedings if the inquiry extends
beyond six months without conclusion. As such, the discharge of the
Petitioner cannot be construed as a finding on the falsity of the allegations or
a determination in his favour on merits.
8. As regards the Petitioner’s contention that he was falsely implicated
in order to dissuade him to refrain from giving evidence in another FIR, the
Revisional Court observed that Respondent No. 2 had no discernible or even
remote connection with the said case. Consequently, no credible motive for
false implication could be established from the material on record.
9. While the Petitioner has sought to rely on the judgement of the
Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Raj Singh & Anr., such reliance is also
wholly misplaced. In Raj Singh, the Supreme Court discussed the scope of
the High Court’s power to quash an FIR in a case where an investigation
was already underway, pursuant to the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the
Cr.P.C.. In stark contrast, the present matter concerns a request for the
registration of an FIR, and initiation of criminal proceedings. These are two
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:37:12
fundamentally distinct scenarios, and accordingly, Raj Singh does not
advance the Petitioner’s case.
10. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court rightly
refused the Petitioner’s request for registration of an FIR against Respondent
No. 2. None of the grounds urged by the Petitioner justify any interference
with the concurrent well-reasoned observations of the said courts.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 23, 2025
nk
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/07/2025 at 22:37:12
[ad_2]
Source link