The court ruled that failure to file a supporting affidavit under Section 156(3) does not necessarily invalidate proceedings if substantial evidence of wrongdoing exists against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2017 passed in connection with Telco P.S. Case No. 33 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 228 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420, 506, 120B, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons inter alia against the petitioner in connection with the said case.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons deceived the complainant and thereby induced the complainant and the witnesses of the case to the tune of Rs.17,90,000/- by alluring them to invest the same with him with lucrative return which he assured to give them from his financial and trading business. The complainant filed C-1 Case No. 2840 of 2015 which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Telco P.S. Case No. 33 of 2016 was registered and police after investigation of the case, submitted charge sheet dated 31.03.2017 in the court and vide order dated 02.05.2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, on the basis of the charge sheet submitted, took cognizance of the said offences as already indicated above and passed summoning order. During the investigation of the case, the petitioner was released on bail. The petitioner filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition on 03.10.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2017 is a cryptic and non-speaking order and no reason has been assigned therein. The complaint is not in consonance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure application are to be supported by the affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and there has to be prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure while filing a petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India summed up the conclusion regarding the judgment in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra) as follows:-

(i) Directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) are mandatory;

(ii) Guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) operate prospectively;

(iii) Non-filing of the supporting affidavit is a curable defect, but must be cured before the Magistrate passes any substantive order on the complaint/application, and;

(iv) If the Magistrate proceeds without the requisite affidavit, such order/any consequential orders/proceedings can be quashed on the sole ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava (supra).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this case, the complaint was fil