ORDER:

The petitioners, who are shown as accused in Crime No.124 of 2017 on the file of Matwada Police Station of Warangal District, has challenged the FIR in Crime No.124 of 2017 on the ground that the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 has not followed the directions given by the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors1.

2. The facts in brief, as can be gathered from the record, would go to show that the de-facto complainant is married with the brother of petitioner No.1/A1 and after giving birth to three daughters, on account of ill-health, her husband died. After the death of her husband, the petitioners, who are brothers and other close relatives of petitioner No.1, have started harassing the de-facto complainant in respect of partition of joint family properties and differences arose on which an attempt was allegedly made on the life of the de-facto complainant and she had to leave the house along with her children. By narrating the harassment meted out by the petitioners, the de-facto

1 (2015) 6 SCC 287

complainant has filed a complaint before the concerned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has referred the said complaint to the police on 06.06..2017 at 1.00 p.m. and the police have registered the same as Crime No.124 of 2017 for the offence under Section 498-A, 304 read with 34 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and issued FIR. The petitioners have challenged the said FIR on the following grounds:

3. That the petitioners have not committed any offence of harassing the de-facto complainant as alleged in the complaint and that a settlement was arrived at between them and the de- facto complainant on 27.06.2015 and the same was reduced into writing in respect of sharing of the properties, whereunder the de-facto complainant has received cash in lieu of share of immovable property and subsequently she filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.133 of 2016. Therefore, partition of the properties is subject to the result of the said suit and that in order to coerce the petitioners, false case has been filed and it is also submitted that the de-facto complainant has not followed the directions given by the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava case (supra).

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. Now, the basic question that was actually canvassed before the Court is that the de-facto complainant has not followed the directions of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava case (supra). Admittedly, this case is filed subsequent to the directions of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava case (supra), which was delivered on 19.03.2015. The Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in paragraph 27 has given the directions in respect of a private complaint as under:

(cid:147)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