New Delhi [India], March 22 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has quashed two trial court orders for the registration of FIR, noting that complaints were not supported by affidavits as required under the law.
The complaint, filed against the husband and wife in a loan matter, was not accompanied by duly sworn affidavits at the time of filing.
The petitioners, Rajat Bhagat and Sarika Bhagat, had challenged the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed their revisions against the FIR registration.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) had directed the registration of FIRs on July 8, 2016.
However, while quashing the orders, the High Court single judge bench referred to a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that mandates an affidavit to accompany an application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
“It was obligatory for the complainant to support his application under Section 156(3) CrPC with an affidavit. Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the judgement and said, “The requirement that an application under section 156(3) CrPC must be supported by an affidavit is mandatory,” the bench said.
“In the case at hand, the application filed by the complainant was not supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) committed an error in entertaining the said application and passing an order for registration of FIR,” Justice Mahajan said in the judgement passed on March 20.
Petitioners Rajat Bhagat and Sarika Bhagat have filed petitions seeking the quashing of the order of February 21, 2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Court, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed, and the order of July 2016 passed by ACMM (West), Tis Hazari Courts, in Compliant case was upheld.
Advocate Isha Kapoor, counsel for petitioners submitted that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC must be supported by a duly sworn affidavit and the learned ACMM ought not to have entertained an application which was not accompanied by such an affidavit.
On the other hand, the petitions were opposed by the counsel for the respondent/complainant, who submitted that the intention of the petitioners was to grab the property of respondent No. 2 and her husband. She contended that mere non-filing of an affidavit along with application under section 156(3) CrPC would not render the said application not maintainable.
The complainant Chetna Kalra had filed a complaint case in 2016 before the court of ACMM, Tis Hazari, praying for the registration of FIR against the petitioners under Sections 420, 463, 468, 470, 471, 506, 120B, 34 IPC. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
