Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DR. ANSHUMAN, J.
Sudha Kumari @ Sudha Devi, Wife of Sharweshwar Kumar Sadanand and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1749 of 2017
Decided On : 01-12-2023
QUASHING - F.I.R. VALIDITY - The court quashed the F.I.R. due to non-compliance with Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the necessity of a duly sworn affidavit by the complainant as established in prior Supreme Court judgments. The absence of such an affidavit rendered the F.I.R. invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ application to quash an F.I.R. registered for multiple IPC offenses, arguing that the F.I.R. was not maintainable due to lack of a proper affidavit from the complainant as required under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the F.I.R. did not comply with the necessary legal requirements, particularly the absence of a duly sworn affidavit from the complainant, which is a prerequisite for the validity of the F.I.R. as per established case law.
Issues: Whether the F.I.R. was maintainable given the lack of a sworn affidavit from the complainant as required under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedents set by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Babu Venkatesh cases, which mandate that an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. must be supported by a duly sworn affidavit from the complainant.
Final Decision: The court quashed the F.I.R. due to its invalidity stemming from non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) :
Learned Senior counsel Mr. P.N. Shahi, for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 is present.
2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. being Gardanibag P.S. Case No. 192 of 2017 dated 25.03.2017 arising out of Complaint Case No. 703(c) of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 472 and 120B of the I.P.C..
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged in under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 as well as the case of Babu Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181. Counsel for the petitioner submits that certified copy of the F.I.R. has been annexed that the writ petition and Paragraph-33 of the writ petition content the statement of affidavit, but this affidavit paper has neither been executed by the complainant nor there is any affidavit on the same and it was referred for filing F.I.R. on the basis of which the F.I.R. has been filed.
4. Learned senior counsel also submits that there is no specific averment and in support of documents attached with the complaint which shows that there is violation of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. and as such this F.I.R. is not maintainable and fit to be quashed.
5. Learned senior counsel on the other hand submits that the content of prayer portion as well as the statement laid down in Paragraph-15 of the writ petition, it has been clearly mentioned a statement by which it transpires that the compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. has been made.
6. Learned counsel admits that in the prayer portion, the signature of the complainant is there, but in affidavit portion, there is no signature. Counsel submits that he has filed counter-affidavit and in Paragraph-46 of the counter-affdavit, there is signature of the complainant on the affidavit. Counsel has also annexed the copy of the receipts sent to the Superintendent of Police, Patna by which he want to show that the compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been made.
7. Upon perusal of the document, it transpires to this Court that in the writ petition, the certified copy of the F.I.R. has been attached and in the certified copy, the complaint petition does not content duly affidavit which is in gross violation of the cases decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e., Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 as well as the case of Babu Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181 respectively where it has been categorically hold that the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the F.I.R. has to be allowed and has to be supported in affidavit which is duly sworn by the complainant, but the certified copy of the F.I.R. indicates that there is deficiency in such affidavit. As such, this Court deems it fit to quashed the present F.I.R..
8. In this view of the matter, the present F.I.R. being Gardanibag P.S. Case No. 192 of 2017 dated 25.03.2017 arising out of Complaint Case No. 703(c) of 2017 is hereby quashed.
An F.I.R. is invalid if it is not supported by a duly sworn affidavit from the complainant, as mandated by Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
The necessity of filing an affidavit before a petition under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate guided by the interest of justice in deciding whether to di....
The court reaffirmed the necessity of following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in cases involving offences with a punishment of less than seven years, as per the Supreme Court's guidance.
The court can quash F.I.R. and subsequent proceedings based on a genuine compromise between the parties, following established legal principles.
The court reinforced the necessity of following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in cases involving offences with a punishment of less than seven years, as per the Supreme Court's guidelines.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
