A complaint under Section 156(3) must be supported by an affidavit; failure to provide it can lead to quashing of criminal proceedings based on insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. The petitioner by way of this application U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. prays to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against her in G.R. Case No.233 of 2012 arising out of Rayagada P.S. Case No.92 of 2012 as a sequel of complaint in 1.C.C. No.30 of 2011 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada.

2. The background of facts in precise are the petitioner, according to O.P.No.2, started a private Chit Fund Scheme of a group of 20 persons including O.P.No.2 and, accordingly, each of the group members was to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month and there would be a monthly draw in which the highest bidder would take the amount so deposited by all the 20 members and the tenure of the scheme would be one year. The scheme accordingly ran and O.P.No.2 was regularly paying Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only per month to the petitioner towards the installment of the scheme and the petitioner was also receiving the said sum by entering the fact in a small book supplied to O.P.No.2 and, in the process, O.P.No.2 paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand) only with effect from 20.02.2009 till 30.07.2010, but O.P.No.2 never took part in the monthly draws as she wanted to take up the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for utilizing the same for the marriage of her daughter. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner got transferred from Rayagada to Gunupur as she was working as a Junior Clerk (Government Servant) and, thereby, she acknowledged her liability to pay Rs.1,85,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand and Five Hundred) to O.P.No.2 and one Padma Swain at the time of her transfer, but she subsequently did not pay that amount. On being aggrieved, O.P.No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner in 1.C.C. No.30 of 2011 before the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada, who by an order sent the complaint to Police U/S.156(3) of Cr.P.C., which was accordingly registered vide Rayagada P.S. Case No.92 dated 11.06.2012 for offences U/Ss.406/420 of IPC paving the way for investigation in this case which culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence U/Ss.406/420 of IPC under which the learned S.D.J.M., Rayagada took cognizance and issued summons against the petitioner. In the above backdrop, the petitioner challenges her implication in this case by praying to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against her in this application U/S.482 of Cr.P.C.

3. In the course of hearing the CRLMC, Mr. C.A. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision in the case of Anil Kumar Agarwalla @ Mandothia Vs. State of Odisha and another , 2023 (1) OLR 389 and Vitla Venkata Rao and others Vs. Suttapalli Venkata Rao , 1983 CLR 80 submits inter-alia that the complaint sent to police station without being supported with an affidavit, is not at all entertainable by the police and the very inception of the complaint to be registered as a Rayagada P.S. Case No.92 of 2012 is not maintainable in the eye of law and on that score, it is required to be quashed. It is further submitted by him that in Vitla Venkata Rao (supra) which is a similar matter, this Court however, had quashed the proceeding on the ground no offence is being made out against the petitioner.

4. On contrary, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA, however, submits that the materials on record definitely disclose the ingredient of offence and, thereby, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner cannot be quashed. None appears for the O.P.No.2 despite being duly noticed as confirmed in postal tracking report.

5. In addressing the rival c