JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Judicial 2 Magistrate First Class, Raipur in unregistered complaint case dated 24.09.2018, whereby an application moved by respondent No.1 under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and direction has been issued to Police Station Civil Line, Raipur to register an F.I.R. and to submit final report. The petitioners have sought following relief(s) in this petition:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to effect and operation of the order sheet of the unregistered criminal case of 2017 of the court of Shir Sumit Kumar Soni, Judicial Magistrate Class I Raipur (Annexure P-1).

10.2 Cost of the petition.

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on 01.03.2017 making allegation that Flat No. 502, Khushi Towers Amlidih, Raipur was sold to him by the petitioner on 22.04.2013, but earlier it was sold to Prabha Bag and Ashish Thakur vide sale-deed executed on 27.05.2011 and 29.08.2011 respectively. He would further submit that search report was also forged one. Respondent No. 1 made complaint before the Station House Officer under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and when no action was taken, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on 01.03.2017 respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Judicial 3 Magistrate First Class and a report was called from the concerned police. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the Court and evidence of respondent No.1 was recorded on 12.10.2017. On 24.05.2018 Court passed the order for registration of F.I.R. against the petitioners. He would submit that affidavit was not filed alongwith complaint filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which is mandatory according to the provisions of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. itself and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that it was not an inquiry under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class proceed according to the provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. They would further submit that the court below recorded the statement of the complainant and thereafter passed an order for registration of F.I.R. They would further submit that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. From record, it is crystal clear that affidavit was not filed by respondent No.1 alongwith application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The proceedings of the learned trial Court would show that on 01.03.2017 complaint case was filed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and on 12.07.2017 the statement of the complainant was recorded. On 14.12.2017 complaint closed his evidence and thereafter case was 4 posted for arguments on registration of the complaint case. On 24.05.2018, the learned trial Court after considering the entire material and evidence of the complainant passed on order for registration of F.I.R. against the petitioner and directed the police to file final report also.

7. In the matter of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with provisions of Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. held that application must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant. In paras 30 & 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 1