This petition is filed seeking for quashing of the First

Information Report in Crime No.193 of 2019 arising out of

PCR No.9113 of 2019 for the offenceSs punishable under

Sections 120-B, 143, 352, 442, 354 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

2.

The Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint

under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

alleging that on 24.03.2019 when the complainant was in her

home, all the accused trespassed into her home and started

abusing her. It is further alleged that the accused forced her

to go to the house of accused No.2 where they threatened her

that they would kill her children and her husband. They also

threatened her that their ladies will file a rape complaint

against her husband and her son so that their future will be at

stake. Thereby, constitute an offence under Sections 504 and

506 of IPC.

4

3.

The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to

the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

The police registered the FIR in Cr.No.193 of 2019. Being

aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the present petition

is filed.

4.

Shri

Murthy.D.Naik,

learned

Senior

Counsel

appearing for the petitioners' counsel made the supporting

submissions:

• The private complaint filed by Respondent No.2 is not

maintainable since the complainant has not satisfied

the requirements of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of

Cr.P.C.

• In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the

decision of the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA

SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2015(6) SCC 287.

• He further submits that the second respondent having

suffered an order of temporary injunction in O.S.No.

5

8091 of 2018 has filed a complaint as a counter blast

so as to circumvent the orders passed by the Civil

Court.

• He further submits that the second respondent without

giving a notice in writing asking the petitioner to

withdraw from the premises belonging to her as

required under Section 441 of Karnataka Amendment

Act 40 of 2014, the present complaint filed by the

complainant for the offence punishable under Section

442 is not maintainable.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2 would submit that the allegations made in

the complaint constitute an offence punishable for the

offences alleged against the petitioner. He further submits

that the documents annexed along with the private complaint

clearly

establishes

that

the

petitioner

assaulted

the

complainant. Hence, he submits that referring of the

complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3)

6

of Cr.P.C. is perfectly legal and the same does not warrant

any interference.

6.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

7.

A

perusal

of

the

complaint

discloses

that

Respondent No.2 has not filed an affidavit stating that before

lodging the private complaint, the requirements of Sections

154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. were complied. The Apex Court

in the case of Priyanaka Srivastava (supra) at Paragraphs

No.30 and 31 has held as under:

"30. 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 tasking any

7

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

c