JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking thejurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 317 of 2021 as well as the order dated 13.08.2021 by which the FIR has been registered upon the Complaint Case No. 1640 of 2021 filed by the informant havingbeen referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant filed Complaint Case No. 1640 of 2021 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh suo moto referred the said complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. even though the complaint was not supported by any affidavit. No order sheet was drawn up by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and following endorsement was only made in the complaint:- “Copy forwarded to the O/c Sadar P.S. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for institute FIR and investigation. Sd/- CJM 13.08.2021” 4. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Kumar & Ors. vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Anr. reported (2013) 10 SCC 705 , paragraph no. 11 of which reads as under:- “11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [ (2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation.” (Emphasis supplied) it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein, it has categorically been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relying upon its judgment in the case of Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668 that the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is required to apply his judicial mind and in such a case the application of judicial mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order concerned. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant as such will not be sufficient. 5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the Magistrate has not even mentioned that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant before making the endorsement on the complaint referring the complaint to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and expect the said endorsement made on the complaint, did not pass any separate order in the order sheet. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 917 and submits that in paragraph no. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 917 and submits that in paragraph no. 45, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has summed up the conclusions by holding as follows :- (i) Directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 are mandatory; (ii) Guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) operate prospectively, (iii) Non-filing of the supporting affidavit is a curable defect, but must be cured before the Magistrate passes any substantive order on the complaint/application and (iv) If the Magistrate proceeds without the requirement affidavit, such order/consequential orders/proceedings can be quashed on the sole ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava (supra). 7. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and Final Report has not yet been submitted. Hence it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 8. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that a Magistrate while passing order for directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the police, has to apply his judicial mind and the application of judicial mind must be reflected in the order concerned. 10. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, this Court from the fact that no separate order has been drawn up by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh for referring the complaint to the police for investigation in exercise of its power under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has only made an endorsement on the complaint itself, which has been quoted in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the same miserably fails to show any application of judicial mind on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh for referring the complaint to police in exercise of its power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the registration of the FIR of Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 317 of 2021 on the basis of the endorsement made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh on the complaint of Complaint Case No. 1640 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. 12. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is directed to pass fresh appropriate orders in respect of the Complaint Case No. 1640 of 2021 in accordance with law. 13. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.