The absence of a supporting affidavit with a complaint under Section 156(3) is crucial, and failure to produce one can lead to quashing proceedings.

ORDER

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.392 of

2023 registered at the Panniankara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470 and 474 read with 34 of IPC. The crime originated from Annexure 11 complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode and forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The allegations in the complaint are to the following effect;

The 2^nd respondent and the 1^st accused are conducting textile business on partnership basis. To that end, a partnership deed was entered into between the 1^st accused, the 2^nd respondent and the owners of the shop rooms from which the textile business is being conducted. The arrangement was that the day-to-day affairs of the partnership will be handled by the 1^st accused and the 2^nd respondent will look after the purchase of textile items. Later, with intention to remove the 2^nd respondent from the partnership, the 1^st accused fabricated a licence deed on 01.02.2020 and obtained GST registration from the Government, by forging the signatures of the owners of the shop rooms. Thus, the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 470 and 474 read with 34 of IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation and Crime No.392 of

2023 was registered at the Panniankara Police Station.

2. The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to quash Annexures A11 complaint, A12 FIR and further proceedings thereon.

3. Heard Adv.T.Shajith for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara, instructed by Adv.Anoop V.Nair, for the 2^nd respondent and Public Prosecutor Adv.Ajith Murali for the State.

4. Learned counsel on both sides argued extensively on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It is not necessary to decide those factual contentions in view of the argument that the affidavit, as mandated by the decision in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2015) 6 SCC 287] , is not filed along with the complaint.

5. Indisputably, Annexure 11 complaint is not accompanied by an affidavit of the complainant. The Apex Court inPriyanka Srivastava (supra), after taking note of the rampant misuse of Section 156(3) of the Code by unscrupulous, unprincipled and deviant litigants, held that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant. Later, inBabu Venkatesh and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another [(2022) 5 SCC 639] , the Supreme Court emphasised that the necessity of filing the affidavit is to make the persons submitting the application under Section 156(3) conscious and to refrain them from making false affidavits. As the complaint in that case was not supported by an affidavit, the Supreme Court found fault with the Magistrate for having entertained the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Recently, in S.N. Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575], the question whether, filing of the affidavit subsequent to the filing of the private complaint will amount to compliance of the direction inPriyanka Srivastava was considered and answered. Therein, the Apex Court succinctly set out the legal position as under;

“Therefore, if after the filing of the complaint/application but before any order thereon is passed, such requirement is allowed to be fulfilled/complied with by the complainant, it would not, in our view, run counter to the law exposited in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). We sum up our conclusions on this score as follows: (i) Directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) are mandatory; (ii) Guidelines laid d