A complaint referred under Section 156(3) must be supported by an affidavit.

The petitioner sought to quash Crime No. 30/2020, registered for alleged offences under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 120B read with Section 511 IPC.

The complaint arose from a payment dispute and alleged that the petitioner and others threatened and attempted to assault the complainant and his companion.

After approaching the police, the complainant received an NCR and an endorsement directing him to approach the court; he then filed a private complaint, which the Magistrate referred for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The complaint was not supported by an affidavit.

The State submitted that a charge-sheet had been filed before the High Court granted a stay.

Whether a private complaint referred for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC could be entertained when it was not supported by an affidavit, as required by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Whether the FIR and charge-sheet should be quashed despite the charge-sheet having been filed before the stay order.

Section 156(3) CrPC empowers a Magistrate to direct police investigation, but an application invoking that power must be supported by an affidavit in accordance with Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287.

The Court treated the absence of the affidavit as a fundamental defect in the complaint.

It also considered Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC, finding that further recourse under those provisions was not required in this case because the police had received the complaint and issued an NCR.

The petition was brought under Section 482 CrPC, which the Court exercised to quash the proceedings.

The Court found that the complaint had been referred under Section 156(3) CrPC without the affidavit required by Priyanka Srivastava.

Although the complainant had approached the police and the police had issued an NCR, that fact did not cure the missing affidavit.

The Court therefore held that the complaint could not be entertained and that the defect undermined the ensuing proceedings.

It concluded that the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet did not prevent quashing, because the foundational complaint was defective.