Cognizance quashed over an unaffidavited complaint found to be a land-dispute counterblast.

The complainant alleged that on 13 March 2018 the petitioners cut and removed masoor crop worth approximately ₹3,500 from land in Plot No. 1113 and assaulted him when he objected. After allegedly receiving no response from the police or the Superintendent of Police, he filed a complaint. On 16 August 2018, the ACJM took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 379/34 IPC

The petitioners sought quashing, contending that the complaint was a counterblast to an FIR they had lodged in 2017, arose from a land dispute, and was unsupported by an affidavit.

1. Whether the cognizance order under Sections 379/34 IPC and the ensuing proceedings should be quashed in light of the alleged land dispute and the petitioners’ contention that the complaint was a counterblast to their earlier FIR.

2. Whether the absence of an affidavit supporting the complaint warranted quashing under the principle in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Sections 379 and 34 IPC concern theft and acts done in furtherance of common intention. The court referred to Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, in connection with the requirement of an affidavit in the relevant complaint process.

The petitioners also relied on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, and Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823; however, the judgment does not separately set out or apply a specific rule from those decisions.

The court noted that the complainant’s allegations concerned removal of crop from disputed land and that the petitioners claimed the complaint had been filed to counter their earlier FIR. The APP and counsel for the complainant did not dispute that the underlying dispute concerned land or that the complaint lacked an affidavit.

Treating the absence of the affidavit as contrary to the principle in Priyanka Srivastava and the complaint as a counterblast, the court concluded that the cognizance order and consequential proceedings should not continue.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the 16 August 2018 cognizance order, together with all consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 674/2018, against all eight petitioners.