JUDGEMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.—Petitioner through the medium of present writ petition has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 30.11.2017, passed by Sub Registrar/ Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu in an application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure titled Joti Gorkha v. Vijay Kumar filed by respondent No. 2 directing respondent No.1 SHO, Police Station, Pir Mitha, Jammu-respondent No.1 to verify the matter and proceed under rules.

2. Before dealing the question of law involved in the present petition, it is necessary to give narration of brief facts. The respondent-complainant had approached the SHO Police Station, Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu by filing an application dated 07.10.2017, alleging serious allegations of commission of rape, attempt to murder and other cognizable offences, but, the concerned SHO didn’t register the FIR. It is alleged that SHO concerned harassed and verbally abused the respondent-complainant. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-complainant approached the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for issuing directions to SHO, Pir Mitha, Jammu for lodging FIR against the petitioner for the commission of offences under Section 376, 506, 307, 325, 354-A RPC. The complaint is silent as to whether the respondent-complainant approached the Senior Police Officer or not. It is stated by the petitioner that complaint is false as respondent no. 2 had taken an amount of rupees one lac from the petitioner on promising to return the same after two months, however, on his demanding the money, she filed application before Women Cell, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. On the contrary, respondent no.2/complainant has alleged in her application that during the year 2013, accused was accompanying her along with other friends on a tour to Amritsar where accused forcibly raped her and thereafter blackmailed her by saying that he has video clip of her rape and forced her to extract sexual favours on several occasions in different places.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned complaint is bad inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has proceeded in the application under Section 156(3) without application of mind. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of UP wherein it is provided that applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the same is not complied with by the complainant-respondent while filing the application before the Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 cannot be believed to be true as she reproduced two different version of statement and remained silent for the last so many years, which is a serious question on the veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent on the other hand submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner are heinous and continuous offence and a complaint can be filed against such offences, at any point of time, notwithstanding the fact as to the delay and laches in filing the same. Learned counsel further contends that the learned Magistrate has only forwarded the application under Section 156(3) to the concerned Police Station for appropriate action under law after investigating the matter. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant petition. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumar V. Govt. of UP and others 2014 (2) SCC 1, wherein it is held that the Court has to take cognizance where heinous offence has been committed. Learned counsel further contends that the affidavit has been enclosed with the application under Section 156(3) so laid down