$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010988582024 + W.P.(CRL) 4054/2024 PUSHP MURGAI @ MS. PUSHP LATA MURGAI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Advocate. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with SI Dharmendra Sharma. Mr. R.K. Sahni, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. By way of the present petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’], and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 12.08.2024, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the CrPC came to be rejected. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and improper, and that it fails to take into consideration the fact that, even as per the status report submitted by the State, a cognizable 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 19/09/2026 at 12:00:16 offence is made out. It is further contended that the petitioner is aged about 79 years, has settled abroad, and has no intention of coming to India, and that the view taken by the Court below would, in effect, give a premium to the accused and the State. 3. The submissions are opposed by counsel appearing for the respondents, on various grounds, including that the writ petition is not maintainable against the impugned order, and that a revision ought to have been preferred. It is further submitted that, in any event, the petitioner is at liberty to adduce pre-summoning evidence. 4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. Paragraph 7 of the impugned order is extracted as under: “7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it does not appear that investigation by police is necessary, as the complainant is in possession of the necessary material/evidence. Accordingly, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to treat her application under Section 156(3) CrPC as a complaint under Section 200 CrPC, or to file a fresh complaint under Section 200 CrPC and lead PSE in support of the same. If the court is of the opinion that any inquiry or investigation is necessary, then it can postpone the issue of process against the accused and inquire itself, or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or an appropriate person under Section 202 CrPC.” 5. It is thus evident that the registration of an FIR is not necessitated in the present case, inasmuch as the nature of the inquiry that is required to be conducted can be undertaken by the competent Court upon the petitioner producing the evidence in her possession. In Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat,1 the Supreme Court held as under: “The direction under Section 156(3) is to be issued only after application of mind by the Magistrate. … The Magistrate should pass orders only if he 1 (2015) 6 SCC 439. 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 19/09/2026 at 12:00:16 is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable offences and also about the necessity of police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor which can be procured without the assistance of the police.” 6. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petition stands dismissed. The concerned Court shall, however, deal with the pending complaint in accordance with law. 7. Nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits, or otherwise, of the matter. 8. Bearing in mind the age of the petitioner, and the fact that she is settled abroad, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Court seeking permission to lead her pre-summoning evidence through video conferencing. If such a request is made, let the same be dealt with in accordance with law. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 tr 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 19/09/2026 at 12:00:16