/2022 INSC 0160/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2183 of 2021]
BABU VENKATESH AND
OTHERS  …APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
AND ANOTHER  …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2182 of 2021]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2162 of 2021]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2217 of 2021]
J U D G M E N T 
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted. 
1

2. The present appeals challenge the four judgments and
orders dated 22 nd
  January  2021, passed by  the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru, thereby dismissing the criminal
petitions   filed   by   the   present   appellants   under   Section   482
of the Code   of   Criminal   Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
Cr.P.C.).
3. The   facts   in   brief   giving   rise   to   the   present   appeals,
taken   from   the   appeal   arising   out   of   Special   Leave   Petition
(Crl.) No. 2183 of 2021, are as under: 
4. The   appellant   Nos.   2   and   3   on   one   hand   and
respondent   No.   2   on   the   other   hand,   entered   into   various
Agreements   for   Sale   with   respect   to   properties   situated   at
Bangalore.   According   to   the   appellants,   the   amounts   as
mentioned   in   the   agreements,   were   paid   by   them   as
consideration by three cheques, one of them drawn from the
account   of   appellant   No.   1,   another   one   from   account   of
M/s.   S.S.R.V   Trans   Solutions   and   other   one   from   the
account   of   M/s.   Shobha   Tours   and   Travels,   which   are
operated   by   appellant   No.   1.   All   these   three   cheques   were
2

bearer   cheques.   It   is   the   case   of   appellants   that,   all   the
cheques were encashed by the respondent No. 2. 
5. It is the case of the appellants that, after receipt of the
payments,   the   respondent   No.   2   was   avoiding   to   get   the
Sale­deed registered. As such, the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on
24 th
 November, 2017 had filed four different suits being O.S.
No.   8020/2017,   8018/2017,   1616/2017   and   1614/2017,
before   the   Courts   of   Principal   Senior   Civil   Judge   and
Principal   City   Civil   Judge   at   Bangalore,   for   specific
performance   of   contract.   The   respondent   No.   2,   who   is   the
defendant   No.   1   in   O.S.   No.   8020/2017,   filed   his   written
statement on 09 th
 April 2018.  
6.  The   respondent   No.   2,   thereafter   filed   a   complaint
dated 10 th
 September 2019, with Tilak Nagar Police Station,
Jayanagar,   Bengaluru,   against   the   appellants,   thereby
making allegations of cheating.  Thereafter , following a gap of
almost   one   year,   the   respondent   No.   2   filed   Private
Complaint being P.C.R. No. 12445/2019 on 18 th
  September
3

2019,   before   the   Court   of   II   Additional   Chief   Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore. 
7.  On the same day, the respondent No. 2, along with his
wife who  is the respondent  No. 3 in the  rest of the appeals
arising   out  of  Special  Leave  Petition  (Crl.)  Nos.  2182/2021,
2162/2021,   and   2217/2021,   filed   three   other   Private
Complaints   being   P.C.R.   Nos.   12441/2019,   12443/2019
and 12444/2019 before the same court. 
8. The allegations in the complaints are basically that the
appellant   No.   1,   who   is   the   son   of   appellant   Nos.   2   and   3,
had obtained blank stamp papers from the respondents and
created   Agreements   for   Sale   by   misusing   the   said   blank
stamp   papers.   As   such,   it   is   case   of   the   respondents   that,
the appellants committed forgery and cheated them, and as
such they are liable for punishment for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468 and 120­B of the   Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) . 
4

9.  The   II   Additional   Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate,   at
Bangalore   on   6 th
  December   2019,   passed   the   order   as
under:
“The   Complainant   has   filed   the   present
private   complaint   under   section   200   of
CrP.C.,   against  the   accused  Nos.  1  to   3
for   the   alleged   offences   punishable
under   section   420,465,468,464   and
120­B   of   IPC.   In   the   complaint,   the
complainant   has   made   serious
allegations against the accused persons.
Therefore,   it   appears   this   court   that,   it
is just and proper to refer the matter to
the   jurisdiction   police   for   investigate
and   submit   report.   Accordingly,   the
matter   is   referred   to   PSI   of   Jayanagar
Police   Station   under   section   156   (3)   of
CrP.C.,   for   investigation   and   submit
report by 26.02.2020.”
10.  On   the   basis   of   the   same,   a   First   Information   Report
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   FIR)   No.   258/2019   came   to   be
registered   at   Jayanagar   Police   Station   Bengaluru   City   on
18 th
  December   2019,   for   the   offences   punishable   under
Sections   120­B,   420,   471,   468,   465,   of   the   IPC .   Three
similar   FIRs   came   to   registered   against   the   appellants   on
different dates in December 2019. 
5

11.   The   appellants   thereafter   filed   petitions   under   Section
482   of   the   Cr.P.C.   before   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at
Bengaluru,   being   Criminal   Petition   Nos.   6719/2020,
6733/2020,   6729/2020   and   6737/2020.   The   main
contention   of   the   appellants   in   the   criminal   petitions   was
that,   the   order   under   Section   156   (3)   of   the   Cr.P.C .     was
passed   in   a   mechanical   manner   by   the   II   Additional   Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bangalore.
12.  It   was   submitted   that,   the   Magistrate   was   required   to
apply   his   mind   before   passing   an   order   under   Section   156
(3)   of   the   Cr.P.C.   It   was   further   submitted   that,   unless   an
application   under   Section   156   (3)   of   the   Cr.P.C.     was
supported   by   an   affidavit   duly   sworn   by   the   complainant,
the   learned   Magistrate   could   not   have   passed   an   order
under the said provision. 
13.  It   was   further   submitted   that,   the   dispute   was   purely
civil   in   nature   and   the   criminal   complaint   was   filed   by   the
respondents only to harass the appellants. The Single Judge
of the High Court vide four identical impugned orders dated
6

22 nd
  January   2021,   dismissed   the   petitions   on   the   ground
that, serious allegations of cheating and forgery were shown
in   the   complaint   and   as   such   no   case   was   made   out   for
quashing the FIRs. 
14.  We   have   heard   Shri   Abdul   Azeem   Kalebudde,   learned
counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   and   Shri
Shubhranshu Padhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the   State.   In   spite   of   being   duly   served,   none   appeared   for
respondent No. 2.
15.  It   is   not   in   dispute   that,   apart   from   O.S.   No.
8020/2017,   the   appellant   Nos.   2   and   3   have   filed   suits
being   O.S.   No.   1614/2017,   O.S.   No.   1616/2017   and   O.S.
No.   8018/2017,   seeking   specific   performance   of   contract
with   regard   to   the   Agreements   for   Sale   between   the
appellant   Nos.   2   and   3   on   one   hand  and   respondent   No.  2
on   the   other   hand.   The   said   suits   were   filed   on   24 th
November 2017. 
16. It   is   also   not   in   dispute  that,   written   statements   have
been   filed   by   the   respondent   No.   2   in   all   the   said   suits,
7

between the period from 9 th
 April 2018 to 1 st
 August 2018. It
is   the   defense   of   the   respondent   No.   2   that,   the   appellant
No.   1   who   is   the   son   of   appellant   No.   2   and   3,   is   a   money
lender   and   he   lends   money   at   a   high   rate   of   interest.   It   is
the   further   defense   of   respondent   No.   2   that,   when   the
respondents   approached   the   appellant   No.   1   for   financial
help, he used to take respondents’ signatures on the blank
paper  and   also  collected cheques  signed  by  the  respondent
No. 2 as security for said loan. 
17. It is the further contention  of respondent No. 2  that he
had discharged the debt of the appellant No. 1 by paying an
amount of Rs. 56,50,000/­ (Rupees Fifty­Six Lakh and Fifty
Thousand only) by way of RTGS to the account of appellant
No. 1. The execution of Agreements for Sale was specifically
denied by the respondent No. 2.
18.  After filing of the written statement on 09 th
  April 2018
in O.S. No. 8020/2017, respondent No. 2 on 10 th
 September
2019   filed   a   complaint   before   police   station   Jayanagar,
stating therein that, the appellant No. 1 had created forged
8

documents   with   regard   to   the   properties   belonging   to   the
respondent   No.   2   and   his   wife.   He   has   stated   in   the   said
complaint   that   he   has   not   signed   the   documents   and   that
the   appellants   were   taking   advantage   of   the   blank   cheques
and   blank   stamp   papers.   Thereafter   on   18 th
  September
2019,   respondent   No.   2   filed   a   Private   Complaint   being
P.C.R. 12445/2019. He along with his wife filed three other
Private   Complaints   being   P.C.R.   Nos.   12441/2019,
12443/2019   and   12444/2019   before   the   Court   of   II
Additional   Chief   Metropolitan   Magistrate,   Bangalore ,   out   of
which the present proceedings  arise . 
19. It   could   thus   be   clearly   seen   that,   the   said   complaint
dated   10 th
  September   2019,   was   filed   almost   after   a   period
of   two   years   from   the   date   of   institution   of   suits   by   the
appellant Nos. 2 and 3, and almost after a period of one and
a   half   year   from   the   date   on   which   written   statement   was
filed by respondent No. 2.
9

20. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations
of  this  court in the case of   State  of  Haryana  and  Others
v. Bhajan Lal and Others , 1
 which read thus. 
“102.   In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the   various   relevant   provisions   of   the   Code
under   Chapter   XIV   and   of   the   principles   of
law   enunciated   by   this   Court   in   a   series   of
decisions   relating   to   the   exercise   of   the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent   powers   under   Section   482   of   the
Code   which   we   have   extracted   and
reproduced   above,   we   give   the   following
categories   of   cases   by   way   of   illustration
wherein   such   power   could   be   exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court   or   otherwise   to   secure   the   ends   of
justice, though  it may  not  be possible to lay
down   any   precise,   clearly   defined   and
sufficiently   channelised   and   inflexible
guidelines   or   rigid   formulae   and   to   give   an
exhaustive   list   of   myriad   kinds   of   cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)   Where   the   allegations   made   in   the   first
information   report   or   the   complaint,   even   if
they   are   taken   at   their   face   value   and
accepted in   their   entirety  do  not  prima  facie
constitute   any   offence   or   make   out   a   case
against the accused.
1   1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 
10

(2)   Where   the   allegations   in   the   first
information   report   and   other   materials,   if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code   except   under   an   order   of   a   Magistrate
within   the   purview   of   Section   155(2)   of   the
Code.
(3)   Where   the   uncontroverted   allegations
made   in   the   FIR   or   complaint   and   the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not   disclose   the   commission   of   any   offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4)   Where,   the   allegations   in   the   FIR   do   not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only   a   non­cognizable   offence,   no
investigation   is   permitted   by   a   police   officer
without   an   order   of   a   Magistrate   as
contemplated   under   Section   155(2)   of   the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint   are   so   absurd   and   inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there   is   sufficient   ground   for   proceeding
against the accused.
(6)   Where   there   is   an   express   legal   bar
engrafted   in   any   of   the   provisions   of   the
Code   or   the   concerned   Act   (under   which   a
criminal   proceeding   is   instituted)   to   the
institution   and   continuance   of   the
proceedings and/or  where there is a specific
provision   in   the   Code   or   the   concerned   Act,
11

providing   efficacious   redress   for   the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended   with   mala   fide   and/or   where   the
proceeding   is   maliciously   instituted   with   an
ulterior   motive   for   wreaking   vengeance   on
the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.
103.   We   also   give   a   note   of   caution   to   the
effect   that   the   power   of   quashing   a   criminal
proceeding   should   be   exercised   very
sparingly   and   with   circumspection   and   that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court
will   not   be   justified   in   embarking   upon   an
enquiry   as   to   the   reliability   or   genuineness
or   otherwise   of   the   allegations   made   in   the
FIR   or   the   complaint   and   that   the
extraordinary   or   inherent   powers   do   not
confer   an   arbitrary   jurisdiction   on   the   court
to act according to its whim or caprice.”
21.  It   could   thus   be   seen   that,   though   this   court   has
cautioned that, power to quash criminal proceedings should
be   exercised   very   sparingly   and   with   circumspection   and
that   too   in   the   rarest   of   rare   cases,   it   has   specified   certain
category   of   cases   wherein   such   power   can   be   exercised   for
quashing proceedings. 
12

22.  We   find   that   in   the   present   case,   though   civil   suits
have   been   filed   with   regard   to   the   same   transactions   and
though they are contested by the respondent No. 2 by filing
written   statement,   he   has   chosen   to   file   complaint   under
Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. after a period of one and half
years   from   the   date   of   filing   of   written   statement   with   an
ulterior motive of harassing the appellants. We find that, the
present   case   fits   in   the   category   of   No.   7,   as   mentioned   in
the case of  State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) .
23.  Further we find that, the present appeals deserve to be
allowed on another ground. 
24.  After   analyzing   the   law   as   to   how   the   power   under
Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.   has to be exercised, this court in
the case of   Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others 2
  has observed thus:
“30.   In   our   considered   opinion,   a   stage   has
come   in   this   country   where   Section   156(3)
2   (2015) 6 SCC 287  
13

CrPC   applications   are   to   be   supported   by   an
affidavit   duly   sworn   by   the   applicant   who
seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate.   That   apart,   in   an   appropriate
case,   the   learned   Magistrate   would   be   well
advised to verify the truth and also can verify
the   veracity   of   the   allegations.   This   affidavit
can make the applicant more responsible. We
are   compelled   to   say   so   as   such   kind   of
applications   are   being   filed   in   a   routine
manner   without   taking   any   responsibility
whatsoever   only   to   harass   certain   persons.
That   apart,   it   becomes   more   disturbing   and
alarming   when   one   tries   to   pick   up   people
who   are   passing   orders   under   a   statutory
provision which can be challenged under the
framework   of   the   said   Act   or   under   Article
226   of   the   Constitution   of   India.   But   it
cannot be done to take undue advantage in a
criminal   court   as   if   somebody   is   determined
to settle the scores.
31.   We have already  indicated that there has
to be prior applications under Sections 154(1)
and   154(3)   while   filing   a   petition   under
Section   156(3).   Both   the   aspects   should   be
clearly   spelt   out   in   the   application   and
necessary   documents   to   that   effect   shall   be
filed.   The   warrant   for   giving   a   direction   that
an   application   under   Section   156(3)   be
supported   by   an   affidavit   is   so   that   the
person   making   the   application   should   be
conscious  and   also   endeavour   to   see  that   no
false   affidavit   is   made.   It   is   because   once   an
affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable
for   prosecution   in   accordance   with   law.   This
will   deter   him   to   casually   invoke   the
authority   of   the   Magistrate   under   Section
156(3).   That   apart,   we   have   already   stated
14

that   the   veracity   of   the   same   can   also   be
verified   by   the   learned   Magistrate,   regard
being   had   to   the   nature   of   allegations   of   the
case. We are compelled to say so as a number
of   cases   pertaining   to   fiscal   sphere,
matrimonial   dispute/family   disputes,
commercial   offences,   medical   negligence
cases,   corruption   cases   and   the   cases   where
there   is   abnormal   delay/laches   in   initiating
criminal   prosecution,   as   are   illustrated
in   Lalita   Kumari   [(2014)   2   SCC   1   :   (2014)   1
SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the
learned Magistrate would also be aware of the
delay in lodging of the FIR.”
25.  This   court   has   clearly   held   that,   a   stage   has   come
where   applications   under   Section   156   (3)   of   Cr.P.C.   are   to
be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant
who   seeks   the   invocation   of   the   jurisdiction   of   the
Magistrate. 
26.  This   court   further   held   that,   in   an   appropriate   case,
the   learned   Magistrate   would   be   well   advised   to   verify   the
truth   and   also   verify   the   veracity   of   the   allegations.   The
court  has   noted  that,   applications  under   Section   156  (3)  of
the Cr.P.C. are filed in a routine manner without taking any
responsibility only to harass certain persons. 
15

27.  This court has further held that, prior to the filing of a
petition   under   Section   156   (3)   of   the   Cr.P.C.,   there   have  to
be   applications   under   Section   154   (1)   and   154   (3)   of   the
Cr.P.C.   This   court   emphasizes   the   necessity   to   file   an
affidavit so that the persons making  the application should
be   conscious   and   not   make   false   affidavit.   With   such   a
requirement,   the   persons   would   be   deterred   from   causally
invoking   authority   of   the  Magistrate,  under   Section   156  (3)
of   the   Cr.P.C.   In   as   much   as   if   the   affidavit   is   found   to   be
false,   the   person   would   be   liable   for   prosecution   in
accordance with law. 
28.  In   the   present   case,   we   find   that   the   learned
Magistrate while passing the order under Section 156 (3) of
the Cr.P.C., has totally  failed to consider the law laid down
by this court. 
29.  From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that,
the   complainant/respondent   No.   2   himself   has   made
averments   with   regard   to   the   filing   of   the   Original   Suit.   In
16

any   case,   when   the   complaint   was   not   supported   by   an
affidavit,   the   Magistrate   ought   not   to   have   ent ertained   the
application   under   Section   156   (3)   of   the   Cr.P.C.   The   High
Court   has   also   failed   to   take   into   consideration   the   legal
position as has been  enunciated  by this court in the case of
Priyanka   Srivastava   v.   State   of   U.P.   (supra),   and   has
dismissed   the   petitions   by   merely   observing   that   serious
allegations are made in the complaint. 
30.  We   are,   therefore,   of   the   considered   view   that,
continuation   of   the   present   proceedings   would   amount   to
nothing but an abuse of process of law. 
31.  We   therefore,   allow   these   appeals   and   set­aside   the
judgments and orders  of the High Court dated 22 nd
 January
2021,   passed   in   Criminal   Petition   Nos.   6719/2020,
6729/2020, 6733/2020 and 6737/2020.  Consequently, the
FIR   Nos.   255/2019,   256/2019   filed   on   16 th
  December,
2019,   FIR   No.   257/2019  filed   on  17 th
  December,   2019   and
FIR   No.   258/2019   filed   on   18 th
  December,   2019   registered
with  Jayanagar   Police  Station,   Bengaluru  City   are  quashed
17

and   set   aside.     Pending   application(s),   if   any,   shall   stand
disposed of.
..............................J. 
[B.R. GAVAI]
 .............................J. 
[   KRISHNA MURARI] 
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 18, 2022
18