Saket Court Denies FIR Registration Amid Matrimonial Dispute Claims

Delhi's Saket Court upheld a magistrate's decision, refusing to direct FIR registration in a matrimonial dispute. The court emphasized the seriousness of issuing FIR directions, noting such orders require substantial evidence of cognizable offenses. The revisionist's appeal against his wife and her family was dismissed, citing lack of prima facie material.

Delhi's Saket Court has declined to issue directions for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), dismissing a revision plea by a man against his wife and her family members. The court upheld the earlier decision made by a magistrate who also refused the issuance of such directions.

Relying on supreme court guidance, the court stressed that ordering an FIR registration is a significant judicial discretion exercise and cannot be approached lightly. Additional Sessions Judge Purshottam Pathak dismissed Vikramjeet Rana's appeal, reinforcing that this direction should be considered carefully to serve justice, grounded in the case facts.

ASJ Pathak asserted this directive is valid when there is prime facie evidence suggesting a cognizable offense needing detailed investigation. The court noted the revisionist's accusations against his spouse and family stem from matrimonial discord, alleging threats and assault, with a prior attempt to file a police complaint unacted upon, later dismissed by a magistrate.

The revisionist's counsel argued trial court negligence in considering existing material, highlighting section 307 IPC's seriousness, necessitating investigatory directions. Respondents' counsel countered that the magistrate's order is justified, devoid of illegality, and affirmed no further police probe is warranted.

(With inputs from agencies.)