The High Court quashed an order directing police investigation and the resulting FIR. The Court held that an affidavit is mandatory for applications under Section 156(3) CrPC to prevent misuse, noting the complainant failed to file one.
Impugned order and FIR set aside; liberty to file fresh complaint.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8203 CRL.P No. 200120 of 2024
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200120 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
DIST: YADGIRI-585223
Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN L MALAGHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONERS
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8203 CRL.P No. 200120 of 2024
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP, FOR R1 BY SRI. MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF REFEERNCE DATED 09.03.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SHAHAPUR IN PCR.NO.52/2023 ON ITS FILE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY QUASH REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CRIME NO.268/2023 BY SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION DISTRICT YADGIR, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC (JR. DN) COURT, SHAHAPUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8203 CRL.P No. 200120 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
The order passed by the learned Magistrate referring the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and subsequent registration of FIR is questioned in this petition, on the ground that the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, has not been followed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8203 CRL.P No. 200120 of 2024
decision at Paras No.29 to 31 has held as under:-
“29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156 (3) warrants application of judicial mind. A Court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8203 CRL.P No. 200120 of 2024
say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8203 CRL.P No. 200120 of 2024
Magistrate under Section 156 (3). That apart we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute / family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay / laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.”
passed by the learned Magistrate shows that a submission was made by the learned counsel for complainant stating that police have not registered the case and in spite of submitting a complaint to the higher authorities, no case was registered. The learned Magistrate has then proceeded to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
contended that the postal receipt for having sent the
complaint to higher authorities was in fact submitted along
with the complaint, however, he admitted that there was
no sworn affidavit filed by the complainant in support of
the complaint, as held in the case of Priyanka Srivastava’s case.
the Hon’ble Apex Court in another decision reported in
(2022) 5 SCC 639 in the case of Babu Venkatesh and
others vs. State of Karnataka and another, has
reiterated the position of law, emphasizing the necessity to
file an affidavit, so that the persons making application
should be conscious and not make false affidavit, as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would liable for
prosecution in accordance with law.
Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE
KJJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate could direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC without a sworn affidavit from the complainant?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersRelied on¶30
(2015) 6 SCC 287 · Who else cites this
Babu Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and anotherRelied on¶56
(2022) 5 SCC 639 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Parvati
Mallikarjun Arbol
The State of Karnataka
Rayappa
Mohammad Nawaz
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
