A complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is invalid if not supported by a mandatory affidavit, which is a vital safeguard against frivolous litigation.

Judgment :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court praying to quash the judgment dated 27.07.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.5/01 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh wherein the learned court confirmed the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh in G.R. Case No.696 of 2015.

2. The background facts of the case are that Opposite Party No. 2, i.e., the Branch Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., filed a complaint before the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, registered as 1CC No. 126 of 2015, praying for cognizance to be taken under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and for a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter. The learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, pursuant to the said complaint, directed the Town P.S., Sundargarh, to register the FIR and conduct an investigation. Accordingly, the IIC, Town P.S., registered the FIR, took up the investigation, and upon its completion, submitted the charge sheet against the Petitioner and another, implicating them in offences under Sections 406/420/201/34 IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, respectfully submitted that the very foundation of the criminal proceeding initiated against the Petitioner is vitiated on account of non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. It was contended that the complaint filed by Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh, was not accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant as mandated by the Apex Court. The said affidavit is not a mere formality but a statutory safeguard to prevent abuse of the criminal process and to ensure accountability of the complainant. In the absence of such a supporting affidavit, the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and any direction by the Magistrate to register an FIR based thereon is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the proceedings initiated on the basis of such a procedurally defective complaint are liable to be quashed, and the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer for discharge is unsustainable in law.

4. Mr. Apat, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, opposing the Petitioner’s challenge, submitted that the objections raised regarding the absence of an affidavit are more of a technical nature and do not go to the root of the matter. It was argued that even if there was any lapse in procedural compliance at the initial stage, it does not automatically invalidate the entire process, especially when the investigation has already been completed and a charge sheet has been filed. Mr. Apat pointed out that the Magistrate has taken cognizance after considering the available materials, which disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge petition is reasoned and based on the merits of the case, and the revisional court has rightly declined to interfere. He contended that the focus at this stage, should not be on minor technicalities but on whether there is enough material to justify a trial.

5. The learned court, having taken cognizance of the offences, posted the case for framing of charge. Instead of facing the charge, the Petitioner moved the learned court by filing a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C., praying to be discharged from the offences. The learned S.D.J.M., having heard the parties, was pleased to reject the Petitioner’s prayer. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, and the matter, having been transferred to the file of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, in Criminal