IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21026 of 2025 PRAFULL GADGE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Singh -Senior Advocate with Shri Juned Ahmed Khan-Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Hemant Sharma -Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

None for the respondent despite service of notice.

ORDER

1] They are heard and perused the case record.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, against the order dated 23.01.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case no.1813/2022, whereby the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent no.2 has been allowed in connection with Crime No.45/2025 registered at Police Station- M.I.G, Indore for offence punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.

3] Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset, has submitted that although the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) was filed in the complaint however, there was no affidavit in support of the same.

4] In support of his submissions, senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava vs State of U.P. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 and Babu Bankatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639, it is submitted that the affidavit ought to have been filed by the complainant in support of this application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

5] The aforesaid submissions have gone un-rebutted, as the respondent no.2 is not represented despite service of notice.

6] Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer. However the counsel could not pin point in the impugned order as to where the Court has taken into account the factum of non-filing of affidavit by the complainant.

7] The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava (supra) is concerned, in para 30, the Court has observed that:

"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC 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 the 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."

In the case of Babu Bankatesh and others (supra), the Apex Court has held that:

"24.This Court has clearly held that, a stage has come where applications under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

25. This Court further held that, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the veracity of the allegations. The Court has noted that, applications under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility only to harass certain persons."

8] In view of the aforesaid, and taking note of the fact that the complainant has not filed any affidavit in support of the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which was a sine qua non for filing such application as has been mandated by the Supreme Court, in such ci