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 direct for registration of a case under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to take cognizance.

JUDGMENT :

This petition has been taken up through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior assisted by Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State.

3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 222/2019 dated 29.07.2019 registered under sections 406/420/323/504/506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro.

4. The Complaint Case No. 399 of 2014 was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 17.07.2014 alleging therein that all the three accused persons including petitioner who are officials of Basil International Limited Branch, Solagdih came to his residence and put forward a lucrative offer and assured him to invest his money in his company for better financial growth and on their assurance, the complainant had invested total Rs.3,00,000/- vide fixed deposits on different dates from 01.10.2007 to 01.08.2008. It is further alleged that on assurance of accused persons, one Jhiru Bauri had also invested total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- vide fixed deposits on different dates from 01.02.2010 to 05.05.2010 and in the same manner one Jhari Bauri had also invested his money to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- vide fixed deposits from 05.05.2008 to 05.05.2014 but after the due date of maturity the accused persons could not get their money back. It is further alleged that the accused persons have grabbed total amount of Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant and witnesses.

5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employee of the company namely, Basil International Limited Branch-Solagdih. He submits that petitioner has been implicated in this case only being the employee of the company. He further submits that complaint is not affidavited and on the basis of that complaint, learned court sent the matter to the police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R and investigation and pursuant thereto Chas P.S. Case No. 222 of 2019 has been registered. He relied on judgment in the case of “Babu Venkatesh and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another” in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2022, Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2022, Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2022 wherein para 27, 28 and 29 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“27. This Court has further held that, prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., there have to be applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. This Court emphasizes the necessity to file an affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious and not make false affidavit. With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the persons would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law.

28. In the present case, we find that the learned Magistrate while passing the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., has totally failed to consider the law laid down 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 Cr.P.C. 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 o