Complainant Must File Sworn Affidavit With Application U/s. 156 (3) CrPC: Karnataka HC Quashes FIR
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR observing that a complainant must file a sworn affidavit before an application under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC.
The Court quashed the order of reference under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C passed by the Principal Civil Judge and the Judicial Magistrate and the subsequent registration of FIR under Sections 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the ground that the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) was not followed.
A Single Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz observed, “In the case on hand, the impugned order 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…Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has 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.”
Advocate Sanjay A. Patil appeared for the Petitioners, while HCGP Anita M. Reddy represented the Respondents.
The Petitioners sought to quash the impugned order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and the FIR, on the grounds that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) were not followed.
The Complainant alleged that two cheques issued as security were misused by the Petitioners by filing a false case against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The private complaint alleged offenses punishable under Sections 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, and the Magistrate referred the matter for police investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
The High Court reiterated the legal position in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) “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.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In the light of the above decisions, the impugned order dated 09.03.2023 passed by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur and subsequent registration of FIR at Shahapur Police Station, are set-aside.”
Cause Title: Parvati & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-K:8203)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Sanjay A. Patil
Respondents: HCGP Anita M. Reddy; Advocate Mahadev S. Patil
