Supreme Court reiterates that Magistrate shall not entertain applications U/S 156 of CRPC unless it is supported by Affidavit

 We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 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 is 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 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 [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” {Para 31}

25. 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.

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

27. This court has further held that, prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., there have to be applications under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. This court emphasizes the necessity to file an affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious and not make false affidavit. With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law.

29. From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the complainant/respondent No. 2 himself has made averments with regard to the filing of the Original Suit. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court has also failed to take into consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra), and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing that serious allegations are made in the complaint.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 B.R. GAVAI; KRISHNA MURARI, JJ. 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2022

BABU VENKATESH Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Dated: FEBRUARY 18, 2022

Print Page

Chhattisgarh HC: Special Court Under SC-ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act Has Power To Direct Registration Of FIR U/s 156(3) CrPC

The Full Bench of the M.P. High Court in the matter

of Anand Swaroop Tiwari v. Ram Ratan Jatav and

others1996 MPLJ 141 relied upon the decision

 of the Supreme Court

in A.R. Antulay (supra) and other decisions and in

the result, clearly held as under: “(

a) Special Courts under the Act are not to

function as Sessions Court, but as Courts ‘

of original jurisdiction’.

(b) Proceedings of Special Court are governed

by Section 190, Chapters XV, XVI (other than

Section 209) as also Chapters XIX and XX as

the case may be and such other provisions of

the Code as are not inconsistent with the

scheme and provisions of the Act, reading

“Special Courts” wherever the expression

“Magistrate” occurs.

(c) Section 193 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure does not apply to proceedings under

the Act and committal orders are not

required.

(d) Special Court can take cognizance on

private complaints after following the

procedure provided in the Code in relation to

private complaints.

(e) Where cognizance has already been taken

on the basis of committal orders in Police

challan cases, it is not necessary for the

Courts to retrace their steps or to take

cognizance afresh.

(f) Where cognizance has already been taken

on the basis of committal orders in private

complaint cases, the Special Courts may deal

with the cases as if they are dealing with

private complaints under Section 200 of the

Code.”  {Para 30}

31.The decision rendered by the Full Bench of the M.P.

High Court in Anand Swaroop Tiwari (supra) has

further been followed by the M.P. High Court in the

matter of J.N. Fuloria v. Benibai and others 2000(1) MPLJ 459.

32.Thus, from the aforesaid proposition of law rendered

by the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay (supra) and the

M.P. High Court in Anand Swaroop Tiwari (supra), it

is quite vivid that the Special Court constituted

under Section 14 of the Act of 1989 is the criminal

court of original jurisdiction and is not governed by

Section 193 of the Code, and the Special Court can

take cognizance in any of the circumstances referred

to in Section 190 of the Code and is governed by

Chapters XV & XVI of the Code and such other

provisions of the Code which are not inconsistent

with the status and functions as Courts of original

jurisdiction. Therefore, the Special Courts

constituted under the Act of 1989 will also have

power and jurisdiction to invoke Section 156(3) of

the Code to direct investigation in exercise of power

conferred, to the Station House Officer subject to

fulfillment of making two prior applications under

Section 154(1) and thereafter under Section 154(3) of

the Code by the complainant. As such, I do not find

any merit in the submission of learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioners that the Special Judge under SC &

ST Act has no power and jurisdiction to invoke

Section 156(3) of the Code and to direct registration

of FIR and investigation. Such a submission being

meritless and substanceless deserves to be and is

accordingly rejected.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Misc Petition No.173 of 2018

Order delivered on:27-10-2020

 Jaisingh Agrawal, Vs  State of Chhattisgarh, 

Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Print Page