PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 08.01.2015, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Allahabad, in Case No. 18 of 2015 (Jai Prakash Tiwari vs. Makholi and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, Police Station Meja, District Allahabad by which the learned court below has directed that the aforesaid complaint be registered as complaint case.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that this application was given as a counter blast to one first information report lodged on the side of applicants. It has further been submitted that the application filed by opposite party no. 2 was not supported with any affidavit, whereas under the law it needs to be supported with affidavit and, therefore, there is misuse and abuse of the power of the court and the order is liable to be set aside. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 287, wherein it has been held as under :- "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 and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit 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 are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR." ;