Cross FIR Not Necessary When Evidence Can Identify Assailants Without Police Aid: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for the registration of a cross FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The petitioner, Anil Kumar Garg, sought the registration of an FIR against the respondents following an altercation that occurred on March 7, 2021. The court, in its judgment, upheld the decisions of both the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, concluding that police assistance was not required for the identification of additional suspects involved in the incident.

Anil Kumar Garg, a lawyer, had a longstanding dispute with Neo Ram Sharma and Nathu Ram Nagar, who are key figures in the Shri Durga Mandir Trust, Suraj Nagar, Delhi. On March 7, 2021, a confrontation occurred between Garg and Sharma, which allegedly escalated later that evening when Sharma, Nagar, and others trespassed into Garg's home, threatening him. A FIR was already lodged against Garg on the complaint of Sharma, alleging that Garg attacked him, causing injuries. Garg, however, sought the registration of a cross FIR to identify other assailants present during the incident.

The court noted that the initial altercation occurred around 9:00 PM when Sharma accused Garg of damaging property belonging to the Trust. Later that evening, around 9:50 PM, Sharma and Nagar, along with others, allegedly confronted Garg at his home, leading to another altercation. Garg's application under Section 156(3) CrPC sought to identify those accompanying Sharma and Nagar during this second incident.

The court emphasized the importance of the evidence presented, including CCTV footage and a mobile video recording by the petitioner. However, it found that the purpose of identifying additional assailants did not warrant the registration of a separate FIR. The court stated that the ongoing legal proceedings, including the possibility of examining evidence under Section 200 CrPC, provided adequate legal recourse for the petitioner.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who authored the judgment, pointed out that while cross FIRs can be registered for the same incident, it is crucial to assess whether such action is necessary. In this case, the court found that the petitioner could identify the additional suspects through the existing legal process without requiring a separate FIR. The court further noted that the petitioner still had the opportunity to present his evidence, and police assistance could be sought later if necessary.

"Merely because no registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC has been directed, does not imply that the complaint of the petitioner does not have any merit," Justice Krishna stated. The court added, "There is only a deferment of the registration of FIR as the petitioner still has the opportunity to lead evidence in his complaint under Section 200 CrPC."

The Delhi High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition reaffirms the lower courts' findings that there was no immediate need for police intervention in this case. The judgment underscores the judiciary's preference for utilizing existing legal mechanisms before resorting to the registration of cross FIRs. This decision may set a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the sufficiency of alternative legal remedies in the pursuit of justice.

Date of Decision: August 20, 2024

Anil Kumar Garg v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.