$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010439032026 + CRL.M.C. 6856/2026 AKSHIT TYAGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nishaank Mattoo, Mr. Niraj K. Mishra, Mr. Utkarsh Aditya, Mr. Srajan Pandit & Mr. Soham Rawal, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State SI Sukhbir Singh, P.S: Tilak Marg. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 16.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 28679/2026 (exemption) and CRL.M.A. 28680/2026 (exemption) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 6856/2026 and CRL.M.A. 28678/2026 3. The petition is for the following reliefs: “a. Set aside and quash the impugned order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the Ld. ASJ-07 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the case titled “Akshit Tyagi vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi” bearing Criminal Revision no. 246/ 2025; b. Set aside and quash the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Ld. J.M.F.C.-07, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the case titled, “Akshit Tyagi v. State” bearing Ct. Case No. 40519 of 2024; and /or 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:29 c. Direct the S.H.O./official concerned at P.S. Tilak Marg to register an F.I.R. u/s 325/341/352/389/506 of I.P.C. on the complaint filed by the Petitioner and initiate the investigation at the very first instance;” 4. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised three fundamental points to assail the impugned order, which are as follows—first, the matter cannot be investigated in the absence of an FIR being registered by the police; second, the Trial Court pre-supposed that the applicant was aware of the assailant/accused; and third, the witnesses whose statements have been recorded before the filing of the ATR, may not be able to identify the persons unless the proper identification parade takes place. 5. Each of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel have been ably and vocirously opposed by Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP appearing for the State. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the record. 7. The petitioner, a practicing criminal lawyer at the Patiala House Court, contends that on 06.10.2023, while he was walking towards his chamber, an unidentified man suddenly barged into him. A verbal spat, thereafter, took place, in which the assailant/accused identified himself to be a Liutenant General. Ultimately, the scuffle cumilnated into the assailant twisting the wrist of the petitioner. The petitioner, who was at the relevant time, approx. 31 years old, states that it took 10 long days for his twisted wrist to heal. 8. Notably, the petitioner also states that the assailant had also attempted to slap him, but perhaps with his agility, he was able to deflect the same. After this unfortunate incident of 06.10.2023, the petitioner also contends 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:29 that he was stalked by the unknown assailant, threatened, and pictures were taken of his chambers at the Patiala House Court. 9. In relation to the incident of 06.10.2023, the petitioner made his complaint approximately 6 months later. 10. On merits, a perusal of the orders passed by the learned JMFC rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, and its affirmation by the learned revisional Court, do not deserve to be interdicted. The findings of the learned JMFC, made in its order dated 22.01.2025 reads as under: “13. The main purpose of investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C is collection of evidences against respondents…Notably, the complainant is cognizant of the cross-cases and have not disputed their existence. Furthermore, it appears that the alleged "unidentified person" is, in fact, known to the complainant. Thus, it is evident that no additional facts would be revealed by sending the present complaint to police for investigation, thereby rendering the registration of an FIR in the present matter unnecessary. Moreover, if, during the pre-summoning evidence, it is found that the police investigation is necessary or desirable for elucidating the truth, then recourse to Section 202 Cr.P.C. may be taken to meet the ends of justice.” 11. The material portion of the findings rendered by the revisional Court in its order dated 02.05.2026 reads as under: “8. Complainant has approached the Court of Ld. Trial Court as well as this Court with a prayer for registration of FIR mainly on the ground that the proposed accused is an unidentified person and detailed police investigation is required for his identification which cannot be done by complainant in pre summoning evidence. During the proceedings before Ld. Trial Court, several status reports were filed by SI Satender Kumar of PS Tilak Marg. In status report dated 07.10.2024, he intimated the Ld. Trial Court that the enquiry revealed that an FIR bearing no. 28/2024 has already been registered at PS Tilak Marg and the alleged person in the present proceedings happens to be a complainant in FIR No. 28/2024. Meaning thereby, the identity of ‘unknown assailant’ is revealed to the complainant and this Court fails to understand as to what has stopped the complainant from incorporating the name of the complainant of FIR No. 28/2024 PS Tilak Marg, as an accused in the present proceedings. 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:29 only purpose for doing so is to create a ground that the unidentified assailant needs to be identified during police investigation but I do not find any merit in this submission. Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that identified of being proposed accused is known to the complainant. So, police investigation is not warranted for the purpose of identification of the assailant. It is also worth mentioning that statement of two advocates namely Vipin Kumar and Shubham Tyagi were recorded at the time of filing ATR and they have supported the version of the complainant. So, the eye witnesses are also known to the complainant being practicing advocates at Patiala House Courts, Delhi and they can be easily examined in pre summoning evidence by him. It is not the case of the complainant that he was assaulted by any weapon and police investigation is required for recovery of the same. Ld. Trial Court called for subsequent ATR from SI Satender and it was reported that CCTV footage of the incident could not be procured due to lapse of time. Therefore, all these aspects which could have been investigated by the police after registration of FIR, have already been enquired by the police and it is a matter of record.” 12. The rationale for rejecting the petitioner’s prayer to seek the registration of FIR appears to be that–first, the so called “unknown” assailant is not unknown at all. He has being called as such in order to create a reason for registering an FIR. The said “unknown” assailant has registered an FIR against the present petitioner and thus is known to him. This factum has not been denied by the petitioner herein, as is recorded by the learned JMFC; second, there are witnesses, who are known to the petitioner, and can be summoned, in order to prosecute the complaint; and third, on a conspectus of facts and circumstances, the investigative agency’s coercive powers, were not required to be used to adjudicate the petitioner’s complaint, involving, inter alia, the twisting of his wrist. 13. The view taken by the Courts below is in line with the dictum expressed by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,1 paragraph no. 25 of which reads as under: 1 2025 INSC 139 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:29 “25. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Ofcourse, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police.” 14. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the Court finds that the instant is not a fit case where directions under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are to be issued. 15. The petition borders on abuse of process and is hereby dismissed. 16. Needless to state that the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. will have to be adjudicated on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026/aks/rao 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 21/09/2026 at 11:06:29