In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present: The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay CRR 491 of 2025 Nanki Sha @ Sah & Ors. versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Petitioners : Mr. Surojit Basu : Mr. Puspen Barman : Mr. Sayantan Bhowmick For the State : Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP : Mr. Atul Dong Heard On : 01.07.2026 Judgment On : 08.07.2026 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The instant is an application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned proceedings in CR case No. 32 of 2025 under Sections 331, 351(2)(3), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 74, 303(2), 324(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cooch Behar. 2. Mr. Surojit Basu has represented the petitioner. The principal ground on which the petitioner has challenged the proceeding before the learned trial Court is that the complaint filed by the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2 before the learned trial Court being CR No. 32 of 2025 is not supported with any affidavit and hence, is not maintainable. 3. Mr. Basu, learned advocate for the petitioner has further argued that the instant criminal case is a result of several other disputes with regard to landed property between the parties. He submits that several civil cases are pending between the parties and the de facto complainant/opposite party No. 2, having not been able to secure orders from the Civil Courts, has filed the instant criminal case against the petitioner on the basis of false and frivolous allegations which are baseless, just to harass the petitioner with malice and vengeance. Thus, the proceeding now pending before the trial Court, is sought to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Basu, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on an order of this Court in CRR 16 of 2018 dated September 03, 2025 wherein the Court on the basis of judgment of Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported at (2015) 6 SCC 287 and Babu Venkatesh and others versus State of Karnataka and Another in (2022) 5 SCC 639 has quashed the complaint/proceeding for the reason in unavailability of a supporting affidavit with the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 5. Learned advocate for the opposite party No. 2 submits that, irrespective of the fact whether the complaint filed before the trial Court by his client is supported with an affidavit or not, strong cognizable case against the petitioner has been made out therein. Mentioning the basic principles for which the Court may not be prompted to quash the criminal proceeding against an accused person, he has submitted that since in the complaint itself the opposite party No. 2/complainant has duly satisfied the tests of maintainability of the complaint by mentioning in categorical terms her allegations and the petitioner’s specific role in commission of the crime as alleged, absence of affidavit with the said complaint is only a formal defect and not jeopardized administration of justice. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has further mentioned that though the complaint has not been annexed with an affidavit by the opposite party No. 2, she has duly verified the complaint before filing. 6. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, learned APP has represented the State. So far as maintainability of the complaint in absence of affidavit annexed with the same, the said fact has been acknowledged and conceded to by the State also. 7. Heard submissions of the learned lawyers for all the parties. Perused the materials on record, considered. 8. Admittedly, the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 being CR No. 32 of 2025 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar is devoid of any affidavit sworn in by the opposite party No. 2/complainant, annexed with the same. The same is in direct contradiction and contravention of the decision of the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported at (2015) 6 SCC 287. The Court therein has discussed and decided about several issues like provision under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is not meant to be invoked as a matter of routine, due fulfillment of provisions under Sections 154(1) and 154(3), Cr.P.C. as mandatory pre-conditions, the Magistrate is empowered under law to verify the truth by way of ordering investigation to that effect and that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind before directing registration of an FIR and shall not act mechanically merely because a cognizable offence is alleged. Page 4 of 5 9. However, the most vital and talked about proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is that, every application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. should be accompanied by a duly sworn in affidavit by the applicant. The Court intended to ensure responsibility on the part of the complainant and to deter false and reckless allegations. The Court also intended to expose a dishonest complainant to prosecution, for filing a false affidavit. This was not framed merely as a desirable practice but the Court used mandatory language that, “Applications under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant.” 10. The learned advocate for the opposite party No. 2 has tried to impress upon the Court that the complaint which have duly recorded a cognizable case in specific terms, may not be defeated for the reason of any technicality like, to be accompanied with an affidavit. However, this argument is somewhat in violation of the proposition of law settled by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s case (supra). There, the Supreme Court has mandated affidavit to be accompanied with a Court complaint and also explained the reason for the same that, dishonest complainant who came up with untrue allegations, may be exposed to the legal consequences. In case, the argument on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 is accepted the very purpose for which the Supreme Court has directed compulsory inclusion of affidavit with a Court complaint, shall be defeated. 11. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, incorporation of an affidavit with a Court complaint as mandated by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s case (supra) is not only a technical aspect of filing of a complaint in the Court but substantively touches its justifiability, legality and maintainability. Non-compliance thereof, therefore, cannot be looked into in a very light and shallow manner. Page 5 of 5 12. In the factual background of the instant case as it is found on record that, the opposite party No. 2 had not enclosed an affidavit along with the complaint filed by her before the learned Magistrate, the same directly violates the dictum of the Supreme Court and the proposition of law as settled. Hence, such a complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. 13. On the discussion as above, the instant criminal revision case should succeed and the alleged complaint being No. CR case No. 32 of 2025 is liable to be set aside, being not in conformity with law. Hence, the following order is passed. i) The instant criminal revision case No. CRR 491 of 2025 is allowed. ii) The complaint case being CR case No. 32 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Cooch Behar is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) All subsequent proceedings in connection with the complaint No. CR 32 of 2025 stands quashed and set aside. 14. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)