$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010355772026 + CRL.M.C. 5655/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23638/2026 GOPI RAM SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Syed Shakeel Husain, M. Noor Alam Eadrishi, Advs. versus PURSHOTTAM SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS') assailing the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04 & Special Judge (NDPS), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Revision No.248/2025, whereby the petitioner’s application seeking condonation of delay of 184 days was dismissed and, consequently, the revision petition challenging the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned JMFC-11, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in CT Case No.2317/2024 was rejected. By the order dated 19.09.2024, the learned JMFC had dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:00 referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') while granting liberty to the petitioner to lead pre- summoning evidence. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner is the father of Lalit Sharma, who married respondent no.2, Arti Sharma, on 12.05.2023. Respondent no.1 is the father of respondent no.2, while respondent nos.3 to 5 are her brothers. It is the case of the petitioner that after the demise of his wife on 15.07.2023, the private respondents started pressurising him to transfer his property in favour of respondent no.2. 4. The petitioner alleges that upon his refusal to accede to the said demand, respondent no.1, along with respondent nos.3 to 5 and certain unidentified persons, came to his residence on 15.08.2023 at about 8:00–9:00 p.m., demanded transfer of the property and threatened him. According to the petitioner, the incident was captured on CCTV footage. It is further alleged that on 12.09.2023, respondent no.1 along with certain other persons again came to the petitioner's residence and attempted to break open the locks of the house. 5. The petitioner claims to have submitted complaints dated 17.08.2023, 13.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 to the concerned police authorities. Alleging that no action was taken on the said complaints, the petitioner instituted Complaint Case No.2317/2024 before the learned JMFC and filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for registration of an FIR. The learned JMFC, vide order dated 19.09.2024, dismissed the said application observing, inter alia, that the allegations were largely unsubstantiated, the identity of the proposed accused persons was known to the complainant and the relevant evidence, including the CCTV footage, was already in the petitioner's possession. Liberty was, however, granted to the petitioner to lead 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:00 pre-summoning evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition with a delay of 184 days. The learned Revisional Court, vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2026, declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen and that the private respondents have been pressurising him to transfer his immovable property in favour of respondent no.2, his daughter-in-law. It is submitted that upon his refusal, the private respondents, along with certain unidentified persons, trespassed into his residence, threatened him and attempted to forcibly secure transfer of the property. According to the learned counsel, the entire incident stands captured in the CCTV footage and the petitioner had also submitted contemporaneous complaints to the police authorities, however, no FIR came to be registered. 7. He further submits that the learned JMFC failed to appreciate that the petitioner had disclosed commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. Merely because the identities of the proposed accused were known or certain material, including the CCTV footage, was available with the petitioner, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. could not have been rejected. 8. It is further submitted that the learned Revisional Court adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach in declining to condone the delay of 184 days and dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the challenge. According to the learned counsel, the delay had been sufficiently explained and ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:00 material placed on record. 10. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Revisional Court whereby the application seeking condonation of delay of 184 days was dismissed and, consequently, the revision petition was rejected. The revision had been preferred against the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned JMFC declining the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. while granting him liberty to lead pre-summoning evidence. 11. The power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is discretionary and is not to be exercised in every case where a complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The Magistrate is required to examine the facts of each case to determine whether police investigation is necessary or whether the complainant can be asked to lead evidence in support of the complaint. 12. In the present case, the learned JMFC has noted that the identities of the proposed accused were known to the petitioner and that the CCTV footage and other material relied upon by him were already in his possession. The learned JMFC was, therefore, of the view that there was no necessity to direct registration of an FIR and instead granted liberty to the petitioner to lead pre- summoning evidence. This Court finds no reason to differ with the said view. 13. The submission that the learned JMFC ought to have directed registration of an FIR merely because the petitioner alleged commission of cognizable offences cannot be accepted. Whether an investigation by the police is required is a matter to be decided on the facts of each case. The impugned order shows that the learned JMFC considered the nature of the allegations, the material available on record and the fact that the evidence relied upon by the petitioner was already available with him before declining 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:00 the prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. No perversity or illegality is made out in the exercise of such discretion. 14. This Court also finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Revisional Court. The revision petition was filed with a delay of 184 days. The learned Revisional Court considered the explanation furnished by the petitioner and found that no sufficient ground had been made out for condonation of the delay. The discretion exercised by the learned Revisional Court does not call for interference. 15. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has not been left without a remedy. The learned JMFC has granted him liberty to lead pre-summoning evidence. The petitioner is at liberty to produce the CCTV footage and any other material in support of his complaint before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider the same in accordance with law. 16. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in either the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned JMFC or the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Revisional Court. No ground for interference under Section 528 of the BNSS is made out. 17. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 18. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 5, 2026/Av 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 07/08/2026 at 11:31:00