Shabi Ahmed, aged about 27 years, S/o Jubair Ahmed, R/o 407, 4th Floor, Vardhaman v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Taha Ansari, S/o Kayum Ansari, R/o Ukrid, Sector
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 114 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 114 of 2022 Shabi Ahmed, aged about 27 years, S/o Jubair Ahmed, R/o 407, 4th Floor, Vardhaman City 2 Plaza, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, Asaf Ali Road, P.O. +P.S. –New Delhi, Dist –New Delhi. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Taha Ansari, S/o Kayum Ansari, R/o Ukrid, Sector -12, P.O. & P.S. – Sector -12, District –Bokaro, Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the 3 Cr.M.P. No. 114 of 2022 invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to 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. 31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the 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 [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” Hence, it is submitted that order dated 06.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No. 1488 of 2019 whereby and where under order of institution of F.I.R. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been passed and consequent upon which, Bokaro Sector –IV P.S. Case No. 152 of 2020 has been lodged for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/387/504 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceeding in connection with the said F.I.R be quashed and set aside. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 114 of 2022 5. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 06.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No. 1488 of 2019 and subsequent proceeding in connection with the said F.I.R. and submits that non-filing of the affidavit in support of the complaint is a curable defect, hence it is submitted that the order dated 06.11.2019, passed in connection with C.P. Case No. 1488 of 2019 and the consequential orders ought not be quashed and this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that by now it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra) that all complaints to be supported by affidavits is a sine qua non for exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for forwarding the complaint to the police for registration of the F.I.R. Undisputedly, the complaint is not supported by any affidavit and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute regarding non-payment of money and criminal breach of trust. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner of having deceived the complainant since the beginning. Undisputedly, the complaint was filed after filing of the Civil Suit No. 2766 of 2019 by the complainant in the Capacity 5 Cr.M.P. No. 114 of 2022 of Director of Jahanumrah India Pvt. Ltd.. Even if the contents of the complaint are treated to be true in its entirety still no offence as alleged is made out in the facts of the case 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order dated 06.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No. 1488 of 2019 by which the learned In-charge Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has directed the police to institute the case and to investigate it under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. being not sustainable in law is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 06.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No. 1488 of 2019 whereby and where under order of institution of F.I.R. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been passed and consequent upon which, Bokaro Sector –IV P.S. Case No. 152 of 2020 has been lodged for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/387/504 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceeding in connection with the said F.I.R. is quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th October, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No. 1488 of 2019 whereby and where under consequent upon the complaint of the complainant having been forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate with an order for institution of F.I.R.; Bokaro Sector – IV P.S. Case No. 152 of 2020 has been lodged for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/387/504 of the Indian Penal 2 Cr.M.P. No. 114 of 2022 Code and prayer has also been made for quashing the subsequent proceedings in connection with the said F.I.R. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant- informant filed Complaint Case No. 1488 of 2019 without supporting the same with the any affidavit but still the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro forwarded the same under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police for registration of the F.I.R. and consequently, the F.I.R. has been registered. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint has been filed as a sequel of the petitioner in the capacity of Jahanumrah India Pvt. Ltd. filing Civil Suit No. 2766 of 2019 in the Court of District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. It is next submitted that there is no document annexed with the complaint to suggest that the petitioner ever approached the police though there is averment in the petition to this effect. It is then submitted that as the complaint is not supported by affidavit, the act of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in forwarding the complaint to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is in violation of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 para -30 & 31 of which reads as under:-