TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Criminal Procedure after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement with an ulterior motive of harassing the Appellants. This Court has clearly held that, a stage has come where applications Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In the present case, the learned Magistrate while passing the order Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has totally failed to consider the law laid down by this Court - From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the complainant/Respondent No. 2 himself has made averments with regard to the filing of the Original Suit. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court has also failed to take into consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [ 2015 (5) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT] , and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 7. On the same day, the Respondent No. 2, along with his wife who is the Respondent No. 3 in the rest of the appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 2182/2021, 2162/2021, and 2217/2021, filed three other Private Complaints being P.C.R. Nos. 12441/2019, 12443/2019 and 12444/2019 before the same court. 8. The allegations in the complaints are basically that the Appellant No. 1, who is the son of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, had obtained blank stamp papers from the Respondents and created Agreements for Sale by misusing the said blank stamp papers. As such, it is case of the Respondents that, the Appellants committed forgery and cheated them, and as such they are liable for punishment for offences punishable Under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). 9. The II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bangalore on 6th December 2019, passed the order as under: The Complainant has filed the present private complaint Under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the alleged offences punishable Under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute that, apart from O.S. No. 8020/2017, the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 have filed suits being O.S. No. 1614/2017, O.S. No. 1616/2017 and O.S. No. 8018/2017, seeking specific performance of contract with regard to the Agreements for Sale between the Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on one hand and Respondent No. 2 on the other hand. The said suits were filed on 24th November 2017. 16. It is also not in dispute that, written statements have been filed by the Respondent No. 2 in all the said suits, between the period from 9th April 2018 to 1st August 2018. It is the defense of the Respondent No. 2 that, the Appellant No. 1 who is the son of Appellant No. 2 and 3, is a money lender and he lends money at a high rate of interest. It is the further defense of Respondent No. 2 that, when the Respondents approached the Appellant No. 1 for financial help, he used to take Respondents' signatures on the blank paper and also collected cheques signed by the Respondent No. 2 as security for said loan. 17. It is the further contention of Respondent No. 2 that he had discharged the debt of the Appellant No. 1 by paying an amount of Rs. 56,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt who seeks the 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 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Court. 29. From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the complainant/Respondent No. 2 himself has made averments with regard to the filing of the Original Suit. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court has also failed to take into consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra), and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing that serious allegations are made in the complaint. 30. We are, therefore, of the considered view that, continuation of the present proceedings would amount to nothing but an abuse of process of law. 31. We therefore, allow these appeals and set-aside the judgments and orders of the High Court dated 22nd January 2021, passed in Criminal Petition Nos. 6719/2020, 6729/2020, 6733/2020 and 6737/2020. Consequently, the FIR Nos. 255/2019, 256/2019 filed on 16th December, 2019, FIR No. 257/2019 filed on 17th December, 2019 and FIR No. 258/2019 filed on 18th December, 2019 registered with Jayanagar Police S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
