Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Alleged Assault On Woman And Taking Of Her Cows, Says Missing Affidavit Can Be Cured

Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners assaulted her, pulled her saree, and took away her cows.

She said she had first approached the police and the Superintendent of Police without obtaining registration of a case.

On 27 October 2023, the Magistrate referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.; an FIR was registered in Crime No. 218/2023.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and proceedings, arguing, among other things, that the complaint lacked the affidavit and supporting proof of prior approaches to police required by Priyanka Srivastava.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. permits a Magistrate to refer a complaint to police for investigation.

Under Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, an application seeking a direction under Section 156(3) should be supported by an affidavit and should demonstrate prior recourse under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C.

The Court relied on S.N. Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another for the principle that omission to file the supporting affidavit is curable if rectified before the Magistrate passes a substantive order on the complaint or application.

The complaint alleged a specific incident of assault and injuries, and the Court considered that it disclosed, prima facie, cognizable offences; it also noted the allegations concerning medical treatment and the taking of the cows.

Although the petitioners relied on non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava, the Magistrate had only referred the complaint for police investigation and had not passed a substantive order on its merits.

Applying S.N. Vijayalakshmi, the Court held that the affidavit defect could be cured and did not, by itself, justify quashing at this stage.

It permitted respondent No. 2 to file the requisite affidavit before the Magistrate, who was directed to consider it in accordance with law and proceed appropriately.

The petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the proceedings in accordance with law if a charge sheet was filed; the Court also directed payment of Rs. 10,000 as fees to respondent No. 2’s counsel through the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.