The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has emphasized that filing an incomplete or vague complaint to the Superintendent of Police (SSP) or failing to submit a duly sworn affidavit does not satisfy the strict conditions laid down under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)—especially when the jurisdiction of the court is invoked under Section 156(3) CrPC.
This decision came in a case where the petitioners challenged the FIR No. 118/2023, registered at Police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu. The FIR was lodged based on the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu.
Read also: Justice Sanjeev Kumar Appointed Acting Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The High Court, led by Justice Sanjay Dhar, observed:
"No material facts which form part of the complaint made before the Magistrate were disclosed in the complaint made to the Superintendent of Police. Thus, the requirements of Section 154(3) were not strictly adhered to."
The petitioner objected to the Sessions Court's order which directed the police to register the FIR. They argued that the complainant hadn't properly followed the necessary steps under Section 154 CrPC before approaching the court for a direction under Section 156(3).
The Court found that:
“Where an oral complaint is made to the concerned police station by the aggrieved, such person has to file a duly sworn affidavit and annex the same with the application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC.”
Background of the Case:
The dispute began when the respondent/complainant filed a complaint alleging a series of offenses including criminal conspiracy, wrongful confinement, assault, extortion, and coercion to issue cheques under threat.
The incident reportedly occurred on May 19, 2022, when the complainant was allegedly beaten, confined, and forced to sign blank cheques worth ₹14 lakhs. Two vehicles belonging to his family members were also taken by the accused.
While the complainant claimed that his elder sister approached the Police Station Channi Himmat on the same day, there was no affidavit from her to substantiate this, which became a critical point in the court's ruling.
Read also: J&K High Court: Chargesheet Document Index Doesn’t Fulfill Section 294 CrPC Requirement
Later, a written application was sent to the SSP Jammu by the complainant's wife and brother-in-law on October 1, 2022, but the High Court noted that:
“There is no mention of illegal confinement or physical assault in the application to the SSP.”
This, according to the Court, meant the complaint did not convey all material facts and hence, didn't meet the strict requirements of Section 154(3) CrPC.
- Complaint Filed Before Magistrate: January 17, 2023.
- Trial Magistrate Sought SSP Report: Application dismissed on March 2, 2023, due to lack of compliance with Section 154.
- Sessions Court Overturned Magistrate’s Order: On July 15, 2023, the court directed the police to register FIR.
- FIR Registered: August 7, 2023.
- High Court Quashes FIR: April 3, 2025.
The High Court drew heavily from key Supreme Court judgments:
- Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) – Mandates FIR registration for cognizable offenses, but with scope for preliminary inquiry in delayed cases.
- Priyanka Shrivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) – Requires strict compliance with Section 154(1) and (3) CrPC before invoking Section 156(3). The Court here emphasized that applications under 156(3) must be supported by a sworn affidavit and necessary documentation.
- Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2022) and Ranjit Singh Bath v. U.T. of Chandigarh (2025) – Reinforced that FIRs under Section 156(3) must follow prior attempts under Section 154(1) and (3).
“There has to be prior application under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3), and both aspects must be clearly spelled out in the application,” the Court highlighted.
The High Court also observed that the complainant filed the complaint seven months after the incident, and only after the petitioners filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him for cheque dishonor.
The Court concluded that the FIR was lodged:
“With a view to wreck vengeance and as a counter-blast to criminal complaints filed against him by the petitioners.”
The Court declared the FIR "absurd and inherently improbable," stating that criminal prosecution should not be used for harassment or revenge.
The High Court allowed both petitions filed by the accused:
- Set aside the Sessions Court order dated July 15, 2023.
- Quashed FIR No. 118/2023 and related proceedings from Police Station Channi Himmat.
“The learned revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction. The direction for FIR registration without compliance of Section 154 CrPC is not in accordance with law.”
APPEARANCE:
Himanshu Beotra, Advocate For Petitioner
P. D. Singh, Dy.AG and Bhavesh Bhushan, Adv. For Respondents
Case-Title: Anil Gupta and another vs Union Territory of J&K and another, 2025
