ORDER

A second complaint by the defacto complainant referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation without noticing the earlier complaint on the same set of facts and transaction and the cognizance taken thereof for the offence under Section 415, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC is under challenge on the ground of suppression of earlier complaint. It is submitted that it really amounts to abuse of process of the court and cannot be sustained and took support from the legal position laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [2015 (2) KLT 451 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court observed that the practice of filing complaints in a routine manner without taking responsibility and reference of the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be avoided and the Magistrate can in proper cases insist the complainant to file an affidavit in support of the allegations along with the complaint. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:

“27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country, where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of the allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.”

2. The legal position so settled was followed by this Court in Prasanth v. C.V.Kuriakose and Another (2020(4) KHC 795) and Kakkanattu Balagopalan Nair Deepu @ Deepu K.B. v. State of Kerala and Another (2017(1)KHC 862).

3. Apart from the requirement of filing an affidavit in support of the complaint, provisions are made under Section 210 Cr.P.C. to meet a situation wherein two parallel proceedings are initiated, i.e. a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as complaint case) and an investigation by the police, which is in progress in relation to the offence, which is the subject matter of the complaint case. When it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate before whom the complaint case is pending, he shall stay its proceedings of enquiry or tr