Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against 9 Providers Over Cable Operator’s 600+ Allegedly Defective Set-Top Boxes For Missing Affidavit, Allows Fresh Complaint

Respondent No. 2, who operated a cable-network business, alleged that the petitioners supplied defective set-top boxes and failed to provide share certificates or refund an investment of ₹35,00,000.

He filed a private complaint, which the Magistrate referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police investigated and filed a ‘B’ report; after respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition, the Magistrate took cognizance without first passing an order on the ‘B’ report.

The complaint was not supported by an affidavit.

The petitioners sought to quash the resulting proceedings.

Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to direct police investigation.

In Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, the Supreme Court held that an application under Section 156(3) must be supported by an affidavit.

In S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575, the Supreme Court reiterated that this requirement is mandatory, though the defect is curable if cured before the Magistrate passes a substantive order; where the Magistrate proceeds without the affidavit, the order and consequential proceedings may be quashed for non-compliance.

The complaint lacked the required affidavit, yet the Magistrate referred it for police investigation and subsequently took cognizance.

Applying Priyanka Srivastava and S.N. Vijayalakshmi, the Court held that the defect had not been cured before the Magistrate’s substantive orders. The proceedings were therefore unsustainable.

The Court did not determine the merits of the allegations.

Respondent No. 2 was left at liberty to file a fresh complaint, if required.