Non-compliance with mandatory affidavit and Section 154 procedures under Priyanka Srivastava warrants quashing of vague criminal complaints.

The ten petitioners, who are/were officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), sought the quashing of an FIR (Sahibganj Town P.S. Case No. 150 of 2019) registered for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, and 120-B of the IPC.

The criminal case originated from a complaint filed by an advocate alleging financial irregularities and forgery based on observations made by a District Consumer Forum regarding LIC's internal disciplinary actions against one Mr. D. Shome (not an accused here).

The complainant alleged that the petitioners forged LIC cheques and committed criminal breach of trust but failed to provide specific details such as cheque numbers, amounts, or specific documents forged.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) had referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC despite the absence of a supporting affidavit or proof of prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC.

1. Whether the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC is sustainable when the underlying complaint is not supported by an affidavit and lacks compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC?

2. Whether the continuation of a criminal investigation for over six years based on vague and omnibus allegations against public servants amounts to an abuse of the process of law?

Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of legal process.

The mandatory procedural safeguards established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2015), which held that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC must be supported by a prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) and a duly sworn affidavit.

Babu Venkatesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2022) reinforced the requirement for affidavits in Section 156(3) applications.

Principles of specificity in criminal pleadings, noting that vague allegations devoid of particulars (cheque numbers, amounts, specific documents) fail to constitute the ingredients of Sections 406, 420, or 467 IPC.

The Court observed that the CJM, Sahibganj, erred in referring the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC without ensuring compliance with the mandatory requirements of a supporting affidavit and prior attempts to lodge an FIR via Section 154.

Analyzing the merits of the complaint, the Court found the allegations to be "vague and vexatious" and "general and omnibus" in nature, as the complainant failed to identify the specific property entrusted, the specific amount misappropriated, or the specific documents alleged to be forged.

The Court emphasized that the petitioners were public servants and that allowing an investigation to linger for over six years without a Final Report—based on a procedurally flawed complaint—constituted an abuse of the process of law.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR (Sahibganj Town P.S. Case No. 150 of 2019) with respect to all ten petitioners to prevent the abuse of the process of law.