Serial No. 17 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 320/2024 CrlM(776/2024) Bashir Ahmad Lone and Ors. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sajid, Advocate. VERSUS UT of JK and Ors. Through: Mr. Faheem Shah, GA. Mr. Mir, Majid, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 02.07.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 10-05-2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara, whereby complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioners alleging commission of offences under Section 467, 420, 177, 182 IPC has been entertain and a direction has been issued to SHO Police Station Handwara, to take necessary action against the accused persons and to submit compliance report. 2. Heard and considered. 3. The main ground urged by the petitioners for assailing the impugned order is that before passing said it was incumbent upon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to ensure that provisions contained in Section 154(1) & 154(3) of the CrPC are adhered to by the complainant/respondent No. 3. It has been contended that in terms of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava V/s State of U.P (2015) 6 SCC 287 that a Magistrate cannot issue a direction for registration of an FIR on the basis of an application unless it is supported with affidavit of the complainant and he/she has exhausted the remedy of approaching the Incharge of the concerned Police Station and the concerned Superintendent of the Police. 4. A perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate reveals that the same is not supported with affidavit of the complainant nor there is any averment to the effect that the complainant had approached the Incharge of the Police Station concerned or Superintendent of the Police concerned prior to filing the application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without taking note of the fact that aforesaid mandatory requirements have not been followed by the complainant, has proceeded to direct the SHO concerned to take action in accordance with law. The same being contrary to the ratio laid down in Priyanka Srivaastava’s case, is not permissible in law. The impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is, therefore, not sustainable in law. The petition as such, is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is quashed. 6. The complainant shall, however, be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 7. Disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 02.07.2025 Sarvar