Applications under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must be supported by a sworn affidavit to ensure accountability and prevent frivolous litigation.

JUDGMENT

SUNIL B.SHUKRE,J. - Not on board toady. Taken on board. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application questions the legality and correctness or otherwise of the order dtd. 4/1/2016 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon, Dist. Washim thereby directing the concerned police station to investigate the cognizable offences disclosed by the application filed under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."). This application also challenges the judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision No.32/2014, which was filed by non-applicant No.3 against the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing application of non-applicant No.3 to be put up for verification on the next date.

3. The applicants and non-applicant No.3 are close relatives but several disputes, according to the applicants, are going on between them. The applicants contend that as an offshoot of those disputes and with some oblique motive, non-applicant No.3 filed an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. making several allegations against the applicants contending that offences punishable under Ss. 77, 81, 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act were committed by the applicants. The applicants say that these allegations basically pertain to the alleged violation of the conditions of liquor licence run by the applicants and these allegations have been made by non-applicant No.3 with a view to see that their liquor licence is cancelled by the authorities.

4. Initially, learned Magistrate had passed an order to the effect "put up for verification" on the application filed by non-applicant No.3 under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It was challenged by non-applicant No.3 by filing a criminal revision and non-applicant No.3 succeeded in his challenge when the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Washim allowed the criminal revision application and remanded the matter back to the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate with a direction to pass appropriate and speaking order on the application of the complainant. Thereafter a fresh order was passed upon fresh consideration, which is the order dtd. 4/1/2016 impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have interfered in the matter as the allegations made in the application were vague and did not disclose commission of any cognizable offences and, therefore, there was nothing wrong on the part of the learned Magistrate to direct that the application be kept for verification. He further submits that even otherwise, no cognizance whatsoever of the application filed by non-applicant No.3 could have been taken by the Judicial Magistrate as it was made by non-applicant No.3 in clear violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He submits that now it is well settled law that an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. should not be entertained by any Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class unless the application is accompanied by a separate affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint, sworn in in accordance with the rules of procedure. Reliance is placed upon the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) SCC 287.

6. Stand of the learned A.P.P. is that Priyanka Srivastava (supra) being the law of the land, it must be followed by everyone having an occasion to make an application under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or deal with it. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.3 submits that although there can be no quarrel about the principle of law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the compliance with the law could be seen to be made after verification of the complaint is ordered to be made by the concerned Court.

7. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), we are of the view that there is a