[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bhanudas Champatrao Shrirame vs Ravina Prakash Urf Chotu Shrirame on 10 February, 2026
1 9.cri.wp.89.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 89 OF 2026
Bhanudas Champatrao Shrirame
..vs..
Ravina Prakash @ Chotu Shrirame and anr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mir Nagman Ali, Advocate for the applicant. (appointed.)
Shri A.R. Chutke, APP for the State.
CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 10.02.2026.
Heard.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner is
challenging the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Hinganghat and further seeking
direction to the Police Station Officer, Police Station
Wadner, District Wardha to register an FIR under
Sections 302, 307, 308 and 294 of the IPC against the
respondent no. 1 on the basis of the petitioner's
complaint and to conduct the investigation.
3. It appears that present petitioner has filed an
application under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for registration of crime for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 308 and
294 of the Indian Penal Code. However, said application
came to be dismissed by the Judical Magistrate First
Class Court No.2, Hinganghat on 09.11.2023 holding
that mandatory procedure as laid down under Section
154(1) of CrPC has not been followed and further the
complaint was not supported by an affidavit. Against this
2 9.cri.wp.89.2026
Revision was preferred, even the same came to be
dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2024 by the Additional
Sessions Judge Court No.1, Hinganghat.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently
submitted that the affidavit in the nature of verification
was already part and parcel of the complaint. He has also
invited my attention to the postal documents, wherein
the acknowledgment, which was addressed to the Police
Station, Wadner, bearing signature and date of receipt.
He submits that the present petitioner has sent the
complaint through post and therefore, there is sufficient
compliance as laid down under Section 154(1) of the
CrPC. He further submits that complaint is supported by
affidavit as at foot of complaint it is stated that the
contents from para 1 to 10 are true and correct, which he
read over and signed accordingly. Therefore, he submits
that it is sufficient compliance as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka
Shrivastava and anr. vs. State of U.P. and ors. 2015 ALL
SCR 1592, and accordingly, prayed to allow the petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that
it is not clear from the endorsement itself that the
petitioner has sent the complaint or not. Mere
endorsement on the acknowledgment itself not sufficient
to prove that the petitioner has sent the complaint. He
further submitted that perusal of the complaint would
show that initially it was addressed to the Police Station,
Wadner and thereafter to the Superintendent of Police.
Both the complaints appears to have been sent through
post. However, it is not clear whether the envelope
3 9.cri.wp.89.2026
contained actual complaint or not.
6. So far as the affidavit part is concerned, it was
made mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Mrs Priyanka Srivastava and anr. vs. State of U.P.
and ors. (supra) and therefore, the learned APP submits
that unless the mandatory compliance is there, said
complaint is not maintainable and therefore, requested
to reject the complaint.
7. I have heard both the parties. It appears that the
present petitioner has filed the acknowledgment receipt
on the record which would demonstrates that initially it
was addressed to PSO of the police station Wadner.
Further, it appears from another acknowledgment that
the complaint was forwarded to the Police
Superintendent of Police Station, Wardha, however
whether the envelope contains the complaint or not, it is
not clear from these acknowledgments and in what
context these acknowledgments were addressed to the
PSO and the Superintendent of Police is also not clear.
Another ground is in respect of compliance of filing of
the affidavit in support of the complaint, wherein this
Court has already dealt with the issue in the case of
Harry Inder Dhaul vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 200, particularly in paragraphs
13 to 17, which read as under :
"13. Let us see whether in the present case, the
application/complaint lodged by respondent
no. 2 satisfies the compliance referred in cases
of Priyanka Srivastava and Sayed Anwar
Ahmed (supra).
14. A perusal of the application under section
4 9.cri.wp.89.2026
153(3) of the Cr.P.C. shows that at the foot of
the application solemn affirmation is done by
the authorized person of respondent no.2. The
solemn affirmation appearing at the foot of the
application is reproduced here as under:
"SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
I Shripad Prakashrao Moharil, Age - 45
years, resident of Nagpur, do hereby take
oath and state on solemn affrmation that
the content of above paragraphs no. 1 to
14 have been drafted by my counsel -
Adv. Prakash N. Rawlani as per my
instructions. That it has been explained to
me in my vernacular language, they are
true and correct to best of my knowledge
and belief.
Hence verified and signed here
at Nagpur on this 2nd Day of August
2021."
15. Though, the application is supported by an
affidavit in the form of solemn affirmation
referred above, but, it does not substantially
comply with the requirements set out in
paragraph nos. 5 and 8 of chapter VII of the
Criminal Manual as directed in the case of
Sayed Anwar Ahmed (supra). The paragraph 5
and 8 of Chapter VII of the Criminal Manual
are reproduced below:
"5. (1) Every affidavit should clearly
specify what portion of the statement is
made on the declarant's knowledge and
what portion of the statement is made on
his information or belief.
(2) When a particular portion is not
within the declarant's own knowledge but
it is stated from information obtained
from others, the declarant must use the
expression "I am informed" and if it is
made on belief should add "I verily
believe it to be true." He must also state
the source or ground of the information
5 9.cri.wp.89.2026
or belief, and give the name and address
of, and sufficiently describe for the
purpose of identification, the person or
persons from whom he had received such
information.
(3) When the statement rests on facts
disclosed in documents or copies of
documents procured from any court or
other person, the declarant shall state
the source from which they were
procured and his information, or belief,
as to the truth of the facts disclosed in
such documents.
6. ......
7. ......
8. (1) The Officer authorized in this
behalf, shall, before administering the
oath ask the declarant if he has read the
affidavit and understood the contents
thereof, and if the latter states that he has
not read it, or appears not to understand
fully, the contents thereof, or appears to
be blind, illiterate or ignorant of the
language in which it is written, the
Officer administering the oath shall read
and explain or cause some other
competent person to read and explain in
his presence the affidavit to the declarant
in the language which both the declarant
and the Officer administering the oath
understood.
(2) When an affidavit is read, translated
or explained as herein provided the
Officer administering the oath shall
certify in writing at the foot of the
affidavit that it has been so read,
translated or explained in his presence
and that the declarant understood the
same at the time of making the affidavit
and made his signature or finger
impression in the presence of the
6 9.cri.wp.89.2026
Officer."
16. In the present case, only at the foot of the
complaint, paragraph in the form of solemn
affirmation has been made without mentioning
what portion of the statement in the
application/complaint is made on the personal
knowledge of the declarant and what portion
of the statement in the application/complaint
is made by him on the basis of information and
belief. The reasons, for the compliance of these
requirements strictly is very obvious as held in
Priyanka Srivastava (supra) i.e. to see that the
complaint who invokes the jurisdiction under
section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and put the
criminal law in motion, shall be held
responsible for any mischief in making out a
false case. There should be no scope for the
declarant to escape on the technical ground
from responsibility attached to the statement
made by him in the affidavit. Unless those
compliances, referred in paragraph nos. 5 and
8 of chapter VII of the Criminal Manual are
complied with, it will be difficult to hold the
person making a declaration on oath,
responsible for the statement made on an oath.
17. An affidavit fled without complying with
the requirement of Chapter VII of Criminal
Manual published by this court, cannot be said
to be an affidavit filed in compliance with the
direction issued by the apex court in Priyanka
Shrivasta and Sayad Anwar Ahmad. Thus, we
hold that in present case, there is non-
compliance of mandatory requirement i.e. fling
of the proper affidavit."
8. Even this Court has considered the very fact in
the case of Jain Real Estate Builders vs. Parag Prakash
Banthia and ors., wherein in paragraph 10, this Court
has held as under :
"10. From the above, it is crystal clear that
affidavit in support of the application filed
7 9.cri.wp.89.2026
under Section 156(3) of the Code is
mandatory. It is further to be noted that
though at the end, solemn affirmation in the
nature of affidavit is appearing, but that by
itself would not be sufficient in order to
comply the requirements set out in Chapter VII
of the Criminal Manual in paragraph Nos.5 and
8, therefore this issue is no more res- integra
considering the above law laid down by the
Supreme Court as well as this Court referred
(supra)."
9. Therefore considering the exposition of law as
above even in the present case merely at the end of the
complaint "shapath patra" is written, that by itself is not
sufficient as held in the above referred judgments.
10. In this view of the matter, I find that there is no
affidavit in support of the complaint and further it is very
difficult to gather whether actually the complaint was
sent through the post to the Police Station or to the
Superintendent of Police.
11. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any relief
as prayed by the petitioner. Hence the petition stands
rejected.
12. Fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as
per Rules.
(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/02/2026 18:39:03
