Rudhir Sareen vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
- Court
- Bombay High Court
1/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3017 OF 2024
1. Rudhir Sareen
Aged 42 years, Occ : Service
Residing at 1/78, First Floor
Section 57, Gurgaon, Haryana
…Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through EOW, Mumbai
2. Ratnakar Bank Limited
Through Authorized Representative
Having its Corporate Office at
One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2B,
th
6 Floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3192 OF 2024
1. Saurav Vinay Jain,
Aged 40 years, Occ : Service
D 503, Shri Sai Baba Apartments,
Sector – 9, Rohini, Delhi – 110085
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Economic Offence wing
Though Jt. Commissioner of Police
Arjun
2/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
rd
3 Floor, 24 Lokmanya Tilak Road,
Police Colony Dhobi Talao, Kalbadevi,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400002
2. Ratnakar Bank Limited
Through Authorized Representative
Having its Corporate Office at
One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2B,
th
6 Floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3193 OF 2024
1. Kamlesh Hari Kochra,
Aged 42 years, Occ : Business
Flat No. 701, Heera Vatika,
Near Reliance Residency,
Near Bakru Pada, Ambernath East,
District Thane, Maharashtra ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Economic Offence wing
Though Jt. Commissioner of Police
rd
3 Floor, 24 Lokmanya Tilak Road,
Police Colony Dhobi Talao, Kalbadevi,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400002
2. Ratnakar Bank Limited
Through Authorized Representative
Arjun
3/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
Having its Corporate Office at
One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2B,
th
6 Floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 ...Respondents
-----
Mr. Kushal Mor a/w Tanmay Karmarkar, Sarvesh Agrawal,
learned Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.
2.
Mrs. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
Ms. Maithilee Desai, Representative of RBL Bank.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
th
Date: : 17 July, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard, Mr. Kushal Mor, learned Advocate for the
Petitioners, Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned Advocate for the
Respondent No. 2 and Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the
Respondent – State.
2. Mr. Kushal Mor and Mr. Rakesh Pathak submit that the
subject matter of these three Petitions arises from the order
dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Court of the Metropolitan
Arjun
4/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
th
Magistrate, 13 Court, Dadar, Mumbai (“Magistrate”) and the
FIR bearing No. 0275 of 2024 dated 26.04.2024 registered at
the N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station. Accordingly, they request
that all three Petitions be taken up together and disposed of by a
common order. Mrs. Anuja Gotad, learned APP, agrees to the
said suggestion. In view of the said request, these Petitions are
taken up together and disposed of by a common order. Learned
Advocates further submit that Writ Petition No. 3017 of 2024 be
treated as the lead Petition for reference to the facts of the case.
3. By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.PC”), the Petitioner seeks to quash FIR
bearing No. 0275 dated 26.04.2024 registered by the N. M.
Joshi Marg Police Station (“impugned FIR”) for offences
punishable under Sections 114, 120-B, 34, 403, 406, 408, 409,
415, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
4. The impugned FIR alleges that employees of Respondent
No. 2 (“Ratnakar Bank Limited”) in the Credit Card Sales
Department were receiving kickbacks from Direct Selling Agents
Arjun
5/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
appointed by Respondent No. 2. The Accused named in the
impugned FIR, after appointing Direct Selling Agents, paid them
in excess and received kickbacks amounting to Rs.4,29,48,123/-.
The embezzlement and the financial loss caused to Respondent
No. 2 by the Accused amount to Rs.12,02,75,942.
5. Material facts relevant to the adjudication of this Petition
are as follows: the Chief Vigilance Officer of Respondent No. 2
received a complaint from a whistle-blower alleging that two
employees of Respondent No. 2, in the Credit Card Sales Unit,
were accepting kickbacks from payments made by Direct Selling
Agents to Vendors;
a. Respondent No. 2, through its Officer, initiated an
investigation by the Internal Vigilance Department, which
revealed that officials of Respondent No. 2 had received
kickback money in their individual bank accounts and in the
accounts of their relatives and had embezzled
Rs.12,02,75,942;
b. On 10.03.2022, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with
the Joint Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing,
Mumbai (“EOW”), against its employees, including the
Arjun
6/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
Petitioner. On 06.08.2022, EOW informed Respondent No. 2
that the complaint dated 10.03.2022 stood closed as no
offence was made out;
c. Respondent No. 2 filed an Application on 23.06.2023
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC before the Magistrate,
which was registered as C.C. No. 993/Misc/2023 (hereafter
“ Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC ”). By order
dated 05.08.2023, noting that the amount involved in the
complaint dated 10.03.2022 exceeded Rs.10,00,00,000/-, the
Magistrate directed Respondent No. 2 to approach the Court
having jurisdiction.
d. Respondent No. 2 filed a fresh complaint dated
15.09.2023, based on the same facts as those referred to in
the complaint dated 10.03.2022;
e. On 10.10.2023, Respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Revision
Application No. 940 of 2023 before the Sessions Court of
Greater Bombay (“Sessions Court”) against the order dated
05.08.2023 passed in the Application under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.PC;
Arjun
7/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
f. Vide Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2023, the Sessions
Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application No. 940 of
2023. The operative part of the order reads as follows: -
“ ORDER
1. Criminal Revision Application No.940 of 2023 is
allowed.
2. The order dated 05.08.2023 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in
C.C. No.993 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall decide the prayer
of the applicant/complainant afresh, in the light of the
observations made above.
4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall take on
record the original documents returned to the
applicant/complainant.
5. Inform the learned lower Court accordingly.
6. Criminal Revision Application No.940 of 2023 is
disposed off accordingly.”
g. Upon remand of the Application under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.PC, the Magistrate passed the following order on
13.02.2024:
“ORDER
Call Status report from EOW, Mumbai about the complaint
dtd. 15/09/2023 filed by complainant RBL Bank at N.M.
Joshi Marg, Police Station which is forwarded to EOW
Officer.”
Arjun
8/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
h. Respondent No. 1, in response to the order dated
13.02.2024, by letter No. 419/2024 dated 21.03.2024, informed
the Magistrate that the EOW had not received the complaint
dated 15.09.2023;
i. Vide order dated 15.04.2024, the Magistrate disposed of
the Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. The order
dated 15.04.2024, reads as under: -
Order Below Exh.-01
“
in
C.C. No. 993/Misc/2023”
Today matter is posted for order under Section
156(3) of Cr.PC. Perused case file. Record shows that the
case is came back as per order of Hon'ble Session Court for
reconsideration. After reconsideration I have called report
from EOW Mumbai which is below Exh.7. The report
shows that EOW has not received the complaint dated
15/09/2023. The record shows that neither N. M. Joshi
Marg Police Station nor EOW Mumbai has registered the
crime. The EOW has in reply at Exh. 7 contended that no
any cognizable offence is made out, hence they have filed
the application of the complainant.
I have gone through the complainant the
complainant has made allegations of embezzlement of
amount of Rs. 11,06,92,051/- by employees of the bank. It
has also alleged that they have appointed call centre for
sourcing credit card business. The complainant has made
several allegations against the proposed accused. All the
allegations are cognizable in nature. The complainant has
complied the provisions of Cr.P.C. The alleged amount of
embezzlement is more than 11 crores Hence investigation
through police machinery is required, for collection of
relevant documents and evidence and embezzlement
amount.
Arjun
9/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
As the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station and EOW
Mumbai failed to register the crime, though prima facie,
cognizable offence made out, the complainant is entitled
for relief under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the
order :-
ORDER:-
1) Sent complaint to N. M. Joshi Marg, Police
Station for registration of FIR and investigation of the
crime under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC.
2) Senior P.I. of N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station is
directed either to register the FIR or send it to the EOW
Mumbai, if they have no pecuniary jurisdiction to
investigate the crime.
3. Senior P.I. N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station is
directed to submit compliance report. ”
j. The impugned FIR was registered in accordance with the
directions set out in the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the
Magistrate in the Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC.
k. By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
i. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set
aside the F.I.R bearing CR No 275 of 2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 114, 120B, 34,
403, 406, 408, 409, 415, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469,
470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
registered by the officers of N. M Joshi Marg Police
Station;
ii. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the
present Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
stay the further investigation in FIR bearing CR No.
275 of 2024;
Arjun
10/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
iii. Ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (ii);
iv. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any
other Order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
interest of justice.
6. On 16.07.2024, the following interim order was passed in
this Petition, which remains in force till date:-
“1.…….
2……
3. Till the returnable date, the Investigation of the crime to continue
however investigation agency shall not file chargesheet without prior
leave of the Court.”
7. Petition was admitted on 23.08.2024.
8. Mr. Kushal Mor, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has
canvassed oral arguments and placed a written synopsis on
record. He has advanced the following contentions:
i. That the Closure Report filed by the EOW indicated
that Respondent No. 2 had followed the procedure
before on boarding the Direct Selling Agents. The
said Closure Report concluded that the allegations
made by Respondent No. 2 were civil in nature.
Arjun
11/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
ii. That the Application filed by Respondent No. 2 under
Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC, was without complying
with the requirement contemplated under Section
154 (3) of Cr.PC, as such the order dated 15.04.2024
in C.C. No. 993/Misc/2023, is without jurisdiction
and stands vitiated.
iii. That the Application filed by the Respondent No. 2
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC was not supported
by an affidavit, as required by the guidelines laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
1
Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., and the
decision of this Court in the case of Sayed Anwar
2
Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra . It is therefore the
contention of Mr. Kushal Mor that the order dated
15.04.2024 discloses a total lack of application of
mind.
iv. That the order dated 15.04.2024, passed by the
Magistrate in C.C. No. 993/Misc/2023 directing
registration of the impugned FIR, is based on the
fresh complaint dated 15.09.2023 filed by
1 (2015) 6 SCC OnLine 287
2 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 3972
Arjun
12/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
Respondent No. 2, and not on the complaint dated
10.03.2022. Mr. Kushal Mor submits that the
purported complaint dated 15.09.2023 was not filed
with EOW. He refers to the reply of EOW, which
states that EOW had not received the complaint
dated 15.09.2023. He therefore submits that the
order dated 15.04.2024 of the Magistrate stands
vitiated.
v. That the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the
Magistrate in C.C. No. 993/Misc/2023 is mechanical
and is in complete ignorance of the provisions of
section 154 of the Cr.PC.
On the basis of the above submissions, Mr.
Kushal Mor submitted that the impugned FIR be
quashed to prevent abuse of the process of law.
9. Mrs. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent – State,
submits that Respondent No.1, upon receipt of the order dated
15.04.2024 passed in C.C. No. 993/Misc/2023, registered the
impugned FIR. She further submits that Respondent No.1 has
acted in accordance with law and the direction issued by the
Arjun
13/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC.
10. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No. 2, has canvassed oral arguments and placed a written
synopsis on record. He submits that the Respondent No. 2
approached the EOW under Section 154(1) of the Cr.PC and the
Joint Commissioner of Police, EOW, under Section 154(3) of the
Cr.PC before approaching the Magistrate. He submits that the
EOWs’ Closure Report was contrary to law and ignored the
allegations and facts set out by the Respondent No. 2 in the
complaint dated 10.03.2022. He submits that the application
filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC
is supported by an Affidavit dated 23.06.2023. He submits that
the competent and authorized officer of the Respondent No. 2
has affirmed the Affidavit by making responsible statements on
oath, relying on the records, facts of the case and the Internal
Report, which indicated embezzlement of funds by the
Petitioner and other accused named in the FIR. He submits that
the factual matrix in Sayed Anwar (supra) was different,
inasmuch as the allegations in the complaint in Sayed Anwar
(supra) were vague and made after an inordinate delay of 15
years, whereas, in the case of the Respondent No. 2, the
Arjun
14/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
financial fraud is of a larger magnitude. He submits that the
impugned order in Sayed Anwar (supra) was a “cryptic” “two-
liner” order and as such, the said decision will not apply to the
present case. In the alternative, he submits that the Affidavit
dated 23.06.2023 filed by the Respondent No. 2 discloses
substantial compliance. He submits that the order dated
15.04.2024 is detailed and reasoned, providing reasons for the
direction to register the impugned FIR. He relies on the Internal
Report and the findings of the Respondent No. 2. He submits
that the Petition is devoid of merit and is an attempt to scuttle
the investigation into the financial fraud committed by the
Petitioner and the other accused, involving more than Rs.
11,00,00,000/- of public money.
11. Mr. Rajesh Pathak, learned Advocate for Respondent No.
2, by referring to the prayer clause in this Petition, submits that
the prayer clause does not contain any prayer in respect of the
order dated 15.04.2024 passed in the Application under Section
156(3) of the Cr.PC, even though the entire thrust of Mr. Kushal
Mor's argument is to challenge that order. He further submits
that Mr. Kushal Mor has not advanced any arguments on the
issue of disclosure of a cognizable offence in the impugned FIR.
Arjun
15/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
12. In rejoinder to Mr. Rajesh Pathak's contention regarding
the absence of prayer and the arguments in respect of the
impugned FIR, Mr. Kushal Mor submits that if the order dated
15.04.2024 passed in the Application under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.PC is found to be bad in law, the inevitable consequence
would be that the impugned FIR is also bad in law and
consequently liable to be quashed.
13. Though, technically, Mr. Rajesh Pathak may be justified in
his submission regarding the absence of a specific prayer in
respect of the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in C.C. No.
993/Misc/2023, in the facts of this case and more so considering
the grounds in respect of the said order raised in the petition
and the interim order operating in this petition, I proceed,
without getting into technicalities, to consider the competing
arguments advanced by the parties.
14. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned
Advocates.
15. The questions that arise for consideration in this Petition,
from the opposing contentions, are as follows:-
Arjun
16/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
(a) Whether the order dated 15.04.2024, passed by
the Magistrate in C.C. No. 993/Misc/2023, is without
jurisdiction, as the Magistrate entertained the
Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. directly,
without Respondent No. 2 resorting to Section 154(3)
of the Cr.PC.?
(b) Whether the Affidavit dated 23.06.2023, filed by
Respondent No. 2 in support of the Application under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, fails to comply with the
guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Priyanka Srivastava (supra) and by this Court in Sayed
Anwar (supra)?
(c) Whether the order dated 15.04.2024 in the
Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC is based on
the fresh complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 on
15.09.2023?
16. The Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC., filed
by Respondent No. 2, does not indicate that Respondent No. 2
had taken recourse to Section 154(3) of the Cr.PC. after the
Closure Report was communicated to Respondent No. 2 by
Arjun
17/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 06.08.2022.
17. On the aforesaid facts, it is the contention of Mr. Kushal
Mor, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, that, relying on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava
(supra), the Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, filed
by Respondent No. 2, was not maintainable in the absence of a
prior Application under Section 154(3) of the Cr.PC.
18. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 2, submitted that the order dated 15.04.2024
passed in the Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC
merely directs the registration of an FIR to set the criminal law
in motion; in such circumstances, no prejudice is caused to the
Petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble
3
Supreme Court in Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi) .
19. Mr. Kushal Mor, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
sought to contend a conflict between the decisions in the cases
of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) and Anurag Bhatnagar (supra).
He therefore, by relying on paragraph No. 35 of the case of State
4
[UT of Ladakh] v. J&K National Conference , submits that the
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514
4 (2024) 18 SCC 643
Arjun
18/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
earlier view i.e. the first decision in point of time in the case of
Priyanka Srivastava (supra), be followed. Paragraph No. 35 in
State [UT of Ladakh](supra), reads as under:-
“35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders
by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the
leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either
referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating
thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of
High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court
on the score that a later coordinate Bench has doubted its
correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in
law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will
proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it
stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this
Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review
petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High
Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has
been doubted by a later coordinate Bench. In any case,
when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of
equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is
to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge
Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017)
16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Cri) 205. See SCC paras 27 and 28 in the report on this
point.] . The High Courts, of course, will do so with
careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
before it.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Paragraph Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (Supra) read
as follows :-
Arjun
19/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power
under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial
mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police
taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the Code. A
litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority
of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved
citizen with clean hands must have free access to
invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but
when pervert litigations takes this route to harass
their fellow citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle
and curb the same.
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
Arjun
20/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. Paragraph Nos. 32, 33 and 34 of the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Anurag Bhatnagar (Supra) read as
follows :-
32. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
as the informant had directly moved the Magistrate
under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without exhausting
his statutory remedies, the Magistrate could have
avoided taking action on the said application and
could have refused to direct for the registration of the
FIR. However, as entertaining an application directly
by the Magistrate is a mere procedural irregularity
and since the Magistrate in a given circumstance is
otherwise empowered to pass such an order, the
action of the Magistrate may not be illegal or without
jurisdiction.
33. To sum up, the Magistrate ought not to
ordinarily entertain an application under Section
156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed
and exhausted his remedies provided under Section
154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise
competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the
registration of an FIR if the allegations in the
application/complaint discloses the commission of a
Arjun
21/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the
order so passed by the Magistrate would not be
without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on
this count.
34. The Magistrate by the order dated
01.07.2005 has simply directed for the registration of
the FIR so as to set the criminal law in motion but has
not exercised his power under Section 190 of the
CrPC of taking cognizance thereof. In such a
situation, the order so passed by the Magistrate,
though irregular, is of no prejudice to any party, much
less to the VLS. Therefore, it is not appropriate for
this court to interfere in the matter or with the order
of the Magistrate dated 01.07.2005 or with the order
impugned passed by the High Court.
22. The enunciation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka
Srivastava (supra) and Anurag Bhatnagar (supra) indicates that,
although the statutory remedies under Sections 154(1) and
154(3) of the Cr.PC must be exhausted before filing an
Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, entertaining
such an Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC directly
by the Magistrate would be a mere procedural irregularity and
may not be illegal or without jurisdiction.
23. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Khusal Mor
regarding any conflict between the decision in Priyanka
Srivastava (supra) and Anurag Bhatnagar (supra).
24. In the case at hand, the order dated 15.04.2024, passed in
Arjun
22/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
the Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, records that
after perusing the Application and the allegations, the
Magistrate found that the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station and
EOW Mumbai failed to register the crime, even though a prima
facie cognizable offence was disclosed and made out.
Satisfaction of the Application disclosing a cognizable offence is
recorded by the Magistrate. On these findings, the Magistrate
held that Respondent No. 2 is entitled to relief under Section
156(3) of the Cr.PC. Consequently, the complaint, which is the
subject matter of the Application under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.PC is forwarded to the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station for
registration of the FIR and for investigation of the crime.
25. The order dated 15.04.2024 in the Application under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, for reasons recorded therein,
merely directs the registration of the FIR to set the criminal law
in motion. The Petitioner has neither shown nor claimed any
prejudice. For these reasons, I elect to follow the path laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of
Anurag Bhatnagar ( supra) .
26. The next contention of Mr. Kushal Mor is that the Affidavit
Arjun
23/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
filed by Respondent No. 2 in support of the Application under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, is non-compliant with the
guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court.
27. In Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
noted the manner in which Applicants invoke the jurisdiction of
the Magistrate by filing an Application under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.PC. To curb the routine filing of such Applications
without accountability for the statements made and to ensure
that the person making statements in the Application is
conscious that no false statements are made and that, if the
statements are found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution
in accordance with law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed
that an Affidavit be filed with an Application under Section
156(3) of the Cr.PC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further
observed that filing an Affidavit will deter an Applicant from
casually invoking the authority of the Magistrate under Section
156(3) of the Cr.PC.
28. This Court, in the case of Sayed Anwar ( supra ), has
reiterated the observation in the case of Priyanka Srivastava
Arjun
24/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
( supra ) and held that the object of filing an Affidavit
accompanying the Application under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.PC is to ensure that the complainant faces consequences if
the statements made therein are found to be false. This Court
further observed that, to achieve this object, the Affidavit must
substantially comply with the requirements specified in Chapter
VII of the Criminal Manual.
29. The Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC has a
“Verification clause”, wherein the affiant (Assistant Vice
President of Respondent No. 2-Bank) has declared on solemn
affirmation that the contents of the Application under Section
156(3) of the Cr.PC are true to his knowledge and belief and are
correct. In addition to the verification clause , the Application is
supported with an independent Affidavit, wherein the deponent
(Assistant Vice President of Respondent No. 2-Bank), has again,
on oath, stated that he is fully conversant with the facts of the
case, the papers and records available with the Respondent No.
2-Bank and is able to depose to the same. Further, the deponent
has declared that the statements made in the Affidavit are true
and correct to his knowledge and belief. The Affidavit contains
the cause title of C.C. No. 993/Misc/2023.
Arjun
25/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
30. The deponent of the Affidavit filed in support of the
Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC has taken
responsibility for the statements made in the Application. The
Affidavit substantially complies with the requirements of the
Criminal Manual. Though conjectural, the Petitioner does not
claim that the Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC
contains false statements.
31. Contentions of Mr. Kushal Mor that the order dated
15.04.2024 in the Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC
is based on the fresh complaint dated 15.09.2023 are not borne
out by the said order.
32. The order dated 15.04.2024 in the Application under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC refers to the complaint dated
15.09.2023 and notes that it was not received by the EOW. This
is also evident from the EOW's letter dated 24.03.2024, which
specifically states that the EOW Mumbai has not received the
complaint dated 15.09.2023.
33. Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 15.04.2024 in the
Application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC indicates that the
Magistrate has confined himself to the complaint dated
Arjun
26/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
10.03.2022, which forms part of the Application filed by the
Respondent No. 2 under Section 156(3) of the Cr. PC. The order
dated 15.04.2024 complies with the direction issued by the
Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 940 of
2023. I am therefore unable to accept the contention of Mr.
nd
Kushal Mor that the order dated 15.04.2024 is based on the 2
complaint dated 15.09.2023.
34. Apart from the aforesaid contentions, no other
submissions were made in this Petition.
35. Considering the above, no case is made out for
interference. Rule discharged. Consequently, Criminal Writ
Petition No. 3017 of 2024, Criminal Writ Petition No. 3192 of
2024 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 3193 of 2024 are
dismissed. No orders as to costs.
36. At this stage, Mr. Tanmay Karmarkar, learned Advocate
for the Petitioners, requested continuation of the Interim Order,
which has been in operation in these Petitions, for a period of
two weeks from today. This request is sturdily opposed by Mr.
Rakesh Pathak, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
However, considering that the Interim Order passed by this
Arjun
27/27 WP-3017-2024 (J).doc
Court, directing the Respondent No. 1 not to file the
chargesheet, has been in operation in Criminal Writ Petition No.
3017 of 2024 from 16.07.2024, in Criminal Writ Petition No.
3192 of 2024 and in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3193 of 2024
since 23.08.2024, in the interest of justice, I deem it fit and
proper to continue the said order for a period of fifteen (15)
days from today.
[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
KRISHNA
RODGE
Date:
2026.07.20
21:25:59
+0530
ARJUN
KRISHNA
RODGE
Arjun