The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law in criminal proceedings and the failure to follow proper procedure before filing applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The question of law involved in the present cases being common, the same are being decided together.

CRM-M-19760, 19106 and 20644-2018-1st case

2. Challenge in the present petitions is to the common order dated 26.04.2018, passed by Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya, Nangal, as well as consequential FIR No. 58 dated 27.04.2018 registered under Sections 295-A, 499 and 500 IPC at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar.

CRM-M-7925-2018-2nd case

3. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 30.01.2018, Annexure P-8, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shri Anandpur Sahib, Rupnagar and consequential proceedings including registration of FIR No. 19 dated 12.02.2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar.

4. Shorn of unessentials, the facts in the 1st case are that a video of a song named “Jeeju” was released, wherein the petitioner No. 1 in CRM-M-19106- 2018is depicted beating up her drunk husband, who she imagined to be Yamraj, a role portrayed by the petitioner in CRM-M-19760-2018, with a ‘gada’. The song is said to have hurt the religious feelings of the complainant, an advocate by profession. Aggrieved complainant, filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein direction was issued for registration of FIR against the petitioners.

5. In the 2nd case, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are real brothers. As per the Will dated 11.09.1981 of their maternal uncle, half the share of his movable and immovable property was to be transferred to petitioner No. 1, and the rest to petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. Whereas, vide a subsequent Will dated 18.09.1981, the entire property was to be divided equally amongst all the petitioners. The complainant-respondent No. 2, who was the 6th brother was not getting any share as per either of the Will. A suit was accordingly filed by him against the present petitioners alleging that both the Will were forged and fabricated. However, the trial Court held the Will dated 18.09.1981 to be by way of undue influence. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the order of civil Court and during the lis being pending, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No. 2 seeking registration of FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the 1st case would submit that in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the complainant had not averred that he had approached the police authorities prior to filing of the same. In the 2nd case, though it was mentioned that the complainant-respondent had approached the police, however no document was filed alongwith the application to substantiate. Further, the trial Court had decided the suit on 19.08.2017, the appeal against which was filed in November, 2017 and notice was issued on 29.11.2017. There was an order passed on 03.01.2018, wherein it has been recorded that the complainant had appeared in person on the said date, but in the application filed on 30.01.2018 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. this fact of challenge to the civil decree was concealed. The Magistrate also failed to verify as to whether the complainant had, as a matter of fact, approached the police and if at all, the outcome thereof. It was further assiduously urged by the learned counsel in both the cases, that the applications in question filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were not accompanied by affidavits of the respective complainants, as mandated, the compliance of which, even the Magistrate was bound to ensure. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287, Vikram Johar vs. State of U.P. (2019) 14 SCC 207 and Babu Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka, (2022) 5 SCC 639.

7. While assailing the impugned order, the submission advanced in the 1st case, was that it is discernible therefrom that the Magistrate without even having viewed the song in question, formed a prim