$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 417/2026 PARAMJIT KAUR KLER .....Petitioner Through: Mr Arpit Batra, Mr Hemant Batra, Mr Shorya Rawat, Mr Abhishek Thakur, Mr Aman Katyal, Advocates. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist/complainant. 2. The revisionist/ complainant had filed the complaint case along with application under Section 156(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 3. It was the case of the complainant that in the year 2022, the accused was inducted as a tenant in a portion of the complainant’s property at H. No. 16/3, Chinar Drive, Chattarpur, Delhi and started residing there with his family. After some time, the accused started harassing the complainant and her family members and violated the terms of the registered lease deed. 4. It is alleged that on 09.02.2025, the accused had extended death threats. It is further alleged that on 09.02.2025, the accused physically assaulted the complainant and her son, outraged the complainant’s modesty 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 25/07/2026 at 11:36:44 and threatened her with dire consequences. It was further alleged that around 2.00 P.M. while the complainant was present near the driveway with her grandchildren aged about 8 and 5 years, the accused approached in his car, deliberately increased its speed to intimidate her, and possibly cause hurt to the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that material evidence including CCTV footage and statement of public witnesses was within the complainant’s possession, and therefore, police investigation was necessary for collection of such evidence. 6. The Magistrate called the Action Taken Report (ATR). The Investigating Officer had taken the position that upon inquiry, and on MLC of Ms. Paramjeet Kler, the nature of the injury was opined as grievous and kind of weapon used N/A. The IO has stated that in the MLC that notice to provide expert opinion of injury caused to patient Jaipreet was served and in response, a written reply from Division of Forensic Pathology and Molecular DNA Laboratory received in which it was opined that the possibility of injury caused to Jaipreet due to hitting a person/ object with hand/ first cannot be ruled out. The IO has stated that allegations of the complainant could not be sustained and the complaint has been made as a counter compliant of Sangeeta Mehra. In paragraph no. 12 of the impugned order, learned JFMC has taken the following position: “12. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not expedient to order investigation in the present matter in exercise of the judicial power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The facts constituting the alleged crime and identity of the proposed accused persons is well within the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant is herself in possession of the requisite medical records pertaining to the medical examination that was conducted after the alleged incident. Hence, there is nothing in the case necessitating police investigation or intervention. This Court does not deem fit to 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 25/07/2026 at 11:36:44 involve the police machinery in the present case.” 7. Bearing in mind the scope of Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the court observed that the power to direct registration of an FIR must be exercised judiciously on proper ground and not in a mechanical manner. The court found that the present complaint appeared to be a counterblast to the FIR registered at the instance of the accused side and, held that the learned Magistrate had rightly declined to direct registration of an FIR and the court direction to proceed with the complaint under Section 223(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 8. The Court, thus, does not find any justification to interfere into the impugned order, and, accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 21, 2026 aks/sa 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 25/07/2026 at 11:36:44