- The Hon’ble SC has, in Babu Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka held that a magistrate cannot entertain an application under section 156(3) of CrPC unless the same has been accompanied by the affidavit of the complainant.
- The benefit of such a requirement would be that people would be deterred from casually invoking the authority of the magistrate under section 156(3), since if the complaint is found to be false then the complainant would be liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law.
- In the instant case, the allegations were that the accused had obtained black stamp papers from the complainants and had created an Agreement for Sale by misusing the same blank stamp papers. He had thus committed forgery and cheated them and were hence liable for an offence under section 420, 464, 468 and 120B of the IPC.
- The ACJM had directed an investigation under section 156(3) of CrPC and directed police to register an FIR. The accused then approached the HC contending that the order passed for the registration of the FIR was done in a mechanical manner. The HC, however, dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the SC.
- It was contended before the SC that the Magistrate should have applied his mind before ordering the registration of the FIR. It was also contended that unless the application under section 156(3) was accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant, the Magistrate could not have passed the said order.
- It was also submitted by the accused that the complaint had been made solely with the intention of harassing him and the dispute was of a purely civil nature.
- The Hon’ble SC relied upon its judgement in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and ors. wherein it was held that the power to quash proceedings under section 482 of CrPC was a power which should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. There were a few instances which were laid down in this case that offered an example of instances where the proceedings can be quashed, one of them being when the court feels that the criminal case has been instituted with a malafide intent only to exact vengeance upon the accused for private and personal reasons. The Court felt that the instant case appears to fall into this category.
- The Apex Court also relied upon its decision in the case of Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of UP and ors. (2015) SCC and observed that the time has come when applications under section 156(3) of CrPC have to be accompanied by a sworn affidavit of the complainant who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under section 156(3).
- The Court also observed that in appropriate cases, the learned Magistrate ought to verify the veracity of the allegations as applications under the impugned provisions are filed without any fear of consequence only to harass certain people.
- The Apex Court thus observed that the Lower COurt had failed to apply any law which had been laid down by the SC. The Court also felt that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
- Thus, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings and set aside the orders of the lower Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
