Substantial Compliance with Section 156(3) CrPC Ousts Quashing Plea Where Prima Facie Offence Is Disclosed

Facts

The petitioners, members of a charitable society, sought to quash Charge Sheet No. 154/2024 and an order of cognizance dated 11.07.2024 for offences under Sections 120(B)/200/420/294/506/34 of the IPC

Source reference: p.2

The dispute arose following a complaint by a Chartered Accountant against Respondent No. 2, which was later retracted. Respondent No. 2 subsequently filed a complaint (C.R. Case No. 10/2023) alleging the petitioners orchestrated the CA’s actions to malign him

Source reference: p.4

On 21.01.2023, the CJM, Dibrugarh, directed the police to investigate under Section 156(3) Cr.PC

Source reference: p.5

The petitioners challenged this on grounds of procedural non-compliance with Section 154 Cr.PC and the absence of a proper supporting affidavit

Source reference: p.6

Issues

1. Whether the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC was vitiated due to non-compliance with the statutory mandates of Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.PC and the absence of a valid affidavit

Source reference: p.5-6, para. 8-10

2. Whether the allegations in the FIR and Charge Sheet, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners

Source reference: p.6-7, para. 12

Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.PC) regarding inherent powers to quash proceedings

Source reference: p.2

Sections 154(1), 154(3), and 156(3) of the Cr.PC regarding the registration of FIRs and Magisterial directions for investigation

Source reference: p.6

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which established categories for quashing FIRs

Source reference: p.15-16

Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (as referenced in arguments regarding the necessity of a supporting affidavit)

Source reference: p.13

Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka, holding that a Magistrate has the discretion to order investigation if a cognizable offence is disclosed

Source reference: p.11-12

Reasoning

The Court found that Respondent No. 2 had sufficiently complied with procedural requirements by approaching the police and the Superintendent of Police before filing the complaint, noting that those authorities failed to act

Source reference: p.14, para. 21

Regarding the affidavit requirement, the Court observed that although a separate affidavit was not filed, the complaint was duly supported by a sworn affidavit integrated within the petition, which satisfied the legal necessity

Source reference: p.14, para. 21

The Court determined that the CJM did not act mechanically; the order dated 21.01.2023 reflected a finding that investigation was necessary to unearth the facts

Source reference: p.15, para. 22

Applying the Bhajan Lal standards, the Court concluded that the FIR contained specific allegations that prima facie constituted the charged offences, precluding the exercise of inherent powers to quash at a pre-trial stage

Source reference: p.15-17, para. 23-24

Holding

The Court held that the procedural requirements of Section 156(3) Cr.PC were met as the complaint was supported by a sworn statement and prior attempts to lodge an FIR were documented

The Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the Charge Sheet or the order of cognizance

Source reference: p.17, para. 25

The Court ruled that there was no illegality in the Trial Court's orders and that the petitioners had the opportunity to raise their grievances during the hearing on the discharge/framing of charges

Source reference: p.17, para. 24