Jharkhand High Court

Md. Mustafa Ansari Aged About 72 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                                 2025:JHHC:11689




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W.P.(Cr.) No. 321 of 2023
                                   ------
     Md. Mustafa Ansari aged about 72 years, son of Late Md. Yaqub
     Ansari, resident of Waris Colony, Road No. 1, Near Taiba Masjid,
     Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Azadnagar, District East Singhbhum.
                                                  ... ... Petitioner
                                  Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. Kal Majhi son of Late Lakhindra Majhi, resident of village
     Hensa Dungri, P.O. and P.S. Chandil, District Seraikela
     Kharsawan.                                ... ... Respondents
                                   ------
                      CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

     For the State           : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
                                    -----
22/ 16.04.2025

1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to quash the

FIR and also the order dated 21.01.2020, whereby the Court has

directed to lodge FIR under 156(3).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that without

mandatorily complying the provisions of Section 154 (1) and (3) and

without exhausting the aforesaid remedies, the complainant has filed

the complaint.

3. The complainant has filed the complaint before the Court

concerned praying therein to investigate the offence after registering

an FIR under Section 156 (3). He submits that there is no material to

suggest that the complainant has approached the Superintendent of

Police in terms of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C.

4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that a

proper affidavit has been filed in compliance of the provisions of law

and the only point taken by the petitioner is non-compliance of

mandatory provision and on basis of the complaint, by invoking

2025:JHHC:11689

Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an order was passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate to register an FIR.

5. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in paragraph 30 and 31 has held as follows.

30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC 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 the 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.

31. 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.

6. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is in relation to information given to

the police in cognizable cases. If the police does not register an FIR,

the person aggrieved has remedy in terms of Section 154 (3) which

reads as follows.

154. Information in cognizable cases.

(1).......

(2).......

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer

2025:JHHC:11689

subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the very recent judgment i.e.

Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr. While

dealing with the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) in paragraph 7

and 8 has held as follows.

7. The requirement of sub-Section (1) of Section 154 is that information regarding commission of a cognizable offence has to be furnished to an officer Incharge of a Police Station. In this case, obviously, the said compliance was not made. It is stated that the Inspector General of Police forwarded a complaint to the Economic Offences Wing. Sub-Section (3) of Section 154 comes into picture only when after a complaint is submitted to the Officer Incharge of Police Station or information is provided to the Officer Incharge of Police Station regarding commission of a cognizable offence, the Officer Incharge refuses or neglects to register First Information Report.

8. Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CRPC are the two remedies available for setting the criminal law in motion. Therefore, this Court held that before a complainant chooses to adopt a remedy under Section 156(3) of the CRPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the CRPC and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support. However, in this case, the second respondent did not exhaust the remedies. In this view of the matter, we find that both the learned Magistrate and the High Court have completely ignored the binding decision of this Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava.

8. Considering the aforesaid judgment and the provision of law, I

have gone through the complaint petition which was sent under

Section 156 (3) for registering FIR. In the complaint petition, the

complainant only made some statement in paragraph 10 and 11 which

according to him is sufficient compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court. It is necessary to quote the said paragraphs.

10. That, the complainant informed the matter of O.P. Kapali on 01.01.2020 because he has got reasons to believe if at night of 31.12.19 he went out to give information then the accused persons may finished him.

11. That, however till date no action has been taken against the accused persons. As earlier conduct of the police it is evident that neither Superior police officer nor the O/C. O.P. Kapali had take any action against the accused persons. So the complainant compelled to filed this case before this learned court today.

2025:JHHC:11689

9. Though the complaint is supported by an affidavit, there are no

other statement on oath to suggest that they have approached the

Superintendent of Police in terms of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Thus, I

feel that the order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been passed

without there being sufficient compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court and Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C.

10. This case is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. Thus, the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 is set aside, so are

all the consequential orders. It is also made clear that I have not

adjudicated on the allegations made by the respondent. The

complainant is free to take recourse of law afresh.