Rajkumar Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3840 MP

                                                           1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                 ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2022

                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11778 of 2022

                                  Between:-
                                  RAJKUMAR SONI S/O CHHOTELAL SONI , AGED
                                  ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
                                  VILLAGE AKORI, POST BELHA, P.S.KOTWALI
                                  TEHSIL BAHARI, DISTTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                                  (BY SHRI SHISHIR KUMAR SONI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH
                                  PETITIONER)

                                  AND

                      1.          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                  SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SUPERINTENDENT
                                  OF POLICE SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.          UGRABHAN MISHRA ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR
                                  POLICE STATION KOTWALI, SIDHI, DISTRICT
                                  SIDHI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.          HITENDRA NATH SHARMA TOWN INSPECTOR
                                  POLICE STATION- KOTWALI, SIDHI, DISTRICT
                                  SIDHI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.          FIVE UNKNOWN POLICE CONSTABLE POSTED AT
                                  POLICE STATION KOTWALI, SIDHI DISTRICT
                                  SIDHI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                                  (BY SHRI AKSHAY PAWAR, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
                                  RESPONDENT NO. 1)

                             T h is appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                            ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant-Rajkumar Soni challenging the order dated 01-02-2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi District Sidhi in Criminal Revision No. 22/2021 whereby affirming the order dated 10-06-2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and refusing to take cognizance of the application filed by the Signature SAN Not Verified petitioner.

Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE

2. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed/rejected the Date: 2022.03.23 11:51:07 IST

application on several grounds including that the petitioner has not filed affidavit in support of the application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been affirmed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi.

3. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Babu Venkatesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another 2022 SCC online SC 200, which has also considered the previous judgment in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and other ( 2015) 6 SCC 287. Regarding necessity of filling affidavit in support of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs-25, 26, 27 and 28 held as under :-

"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.

28. In the present case, we find that the learned Magistrate while passing the order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., has totally failed to consider the law laid down by this court."

4. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, no illegality is found in the concurrent orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi and First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi.

5. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE PG