Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Bhooshan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27265
1 MCRC-96-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 29 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 96 of 2024
BHARAT BHOOSHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner [P-1].
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Mahesh Prasad Agrawal - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner
seeking following relief:-
अतः माननीय यायालय से िनवेदन है क आवेदक क ओर से तुत
आवेदन प वीकार कया जाकर पुिलस थाना कोतवाली जला वािलयर
ारा पंजीव अपराध मांक 39/2018 अ तगत धारा 420, 467, 468
भा.द. व. तथा उससे उदभूत स पूण कायवाह एवं प रवाद प मांक
0/2017 क कायवाह को यािचका के िनराकरण तक थिगत कर आवेदक के
व समा कये जाने एवं यायालय म जमा रािश 80,000/- पये वा पस
दलाये जाने का आदे श पा रत करने क कृ पा कर।
Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission and
final disposal.
The solitary contention raised by counsel for the petitioner in support of
aforesaid challenge is that the application under Sec.156 (3) of Cr.P.C.preferred
by respondent/complainant bank was not supported by affidavit disclosing the
requisite steps taken by respondent No.2/complainant-Bank of availing remedy
u/S.154 (1), 154(3) of Cr.P.C. and thus no cognizance could be taken by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27265
2 MCRC-96-2024
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gwalior in view of law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr Vs. State Of U.P.& Ors
decided on 19 March, 2015 reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287.
The case need not detain this Court any further as a case attended with
similar circumstances, seeking the same relief and based on the same grounds has
been decided on 24/1/2019 in MCRC No. 14819/2018 and MCRC No.3369/2017,
whereby this Court has taken a view which is evident from the relevant para which
is reproduced below:-
"10. After having pursued the relevant extract reproduced above in the
decision of Apex Court in case of Priyanka Shrivastava (supra), it is
vivid that filing of an affidavit in support of an application u/s 156 (3)
of Cr.P.C. has been made mandatory, which is reflected from the
anxiety of the Apex Court expressed in para-35 of its judgment
whereby copy of its judgment is directed to be circulated to all the High
Courts, who in turn have been requested to circulate the same to all the
learned Magistrates functioning under their jurisdiction, so that the law
laid down by the Apex Court is followed to the hilt. The judgment in
Priyanka Shrivastava's case was delivered on 19th March, 2015 which
was much before the impugned order was passed directing the police to
register offences inter alia against the petitioner on the basis of
application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. unsupported by an affidavit.
10.1 If any contrary view is taken than the one taken in this order, it
would amount to ignoring the law laid down by the Apex Court and
therefore, this Court is compelled to take the view that non-filing of an
affidavit alongwith an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. renders the
application not maintainable, despite the complainant having disclosed
to some extent the details about exhausting remedy u/s 154 of Cr.P.C.
prior to filing application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
10.2 In view of the above discussion, there is no iota of doubt that the
direction of the Apex Court in Priyanka Shrivastava (supra) of filing an
affidavit alongwith an application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory,
noncompliance of which renders order passed u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to
be null and void."
From the above analysis and the view taken by this Court, the absence of
affidavit in support of the complaint, Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. could not have
empowered the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gwalior to pass an order of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27265
3 MCRC-96-2024
registration of offence and investigation and, therefore, the order passed by
learned Magistrate on the basis of which the impugned FIR has been registered is
vitiated in the eyes of law.
This Court may hasten to add that allowing of this petition and quashment
of impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings including proceedings of case
No. 0/17 (Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jiwaji Chowk, Bada, Lashkar
Gwalior vs. Bharat Bhushan) shall not come in the way of learned Magistrate to
proceed with the complaint (if any) filed by respondent/complainant/bank u/S.200
of Cr.P.C.and shall also not come in the way of complainant/bank to file a
properly constituted application u/S. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the proceedings of case No. 0/17 (Branch Manager, State
Bank of India, Jiwaji Chowk, Bada, Lashkar Gwalior vs. Bharat Bhushan) are set
aside and as a necessary consequence, the impugned FIR bearing crime
No.39/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Gwalior for offence
punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 of IPC and all other consequential
proceedings against the petitioner stands quashed.
Present petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above and with the
aforesaid liberty extended to the respondent No.2/ Bank.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
