JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR being West Agartala Women P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 under Sections 376/470/420 of the IPC by invoking the inherent power of the court. 2. The brief fact essential for appreciating the challenge is that the victim [name withheld] filed a written complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala being CR. Misc. 16/2017. The victim was working in Jeevan Sathi.com matrimonial website. While working in the said website, she came to know the petitioner. The petitioner presented him as the Engineering graduate and presently working. He was unmarried at that point of time as disclosed. He had further disclosed that he came to Agartala for marrying the victim. The petitioner requested the victim to meet him in a hotel. The victim met him there with her two friends, namely Dr. Sailo Debbarma and Smt. Barnali Debbarma. The petitioner [the accused] promised to marry the victim in presence of her those friends. On such promise, the petitioner had sexual intercourse several times with the victim. Even the petitioner, Sri Thingujam Jeeban Kumar invited her to meet him places like Guwahati, Shillong and Bengalore. When the victim went there, the petitioner had physical relation against her consent. When the victim expressed that she would inform the matter to the police, the petitioner promised to marry her. But the petitioner did not solemnize the marriage despite promises made several times but he continued to have the physical relation with the victim. Initially, the victim did not inform her family. From 2012-2016, the petitioner had physical relation in various places with the victim on promise of marriage. Even on 2016, the accused person came to the house of the victim and taking advantage of absence of her parents he had physical relation. Several times the petitioner came to Agartala and on promise of marriage, had the physical relation with her. On 18.01.2017 and 19.01.2017, the petitioner came to the house of the victim for settling the date of marriage. On those days also on promise of marriage, the petitioner ‘raped’ the victim. Thereafter, suddenly the petitioner ceased from the relationship and he did not the respond the phone calls made by the victim. Situated thus, the victim revealed those occurrences to her parents, relatives and friends. On those days also on promise of marriage, the petitioner ‘raped’ the victim. Thereafter, suddenly the petitioner ceased from the relationship and he did not the respond the phone calls made by the victim. Situated thus, the victim revealed those occurrences to her parents, relatives and friends. According to the victim, as revealed in the written complaint dated 01.04.2017, the petitioner did not reveal his real identity and by suppressing his real identity, he had the alleged relationship. Since the victim is a teacher, out of apprehension of the public shame, she did inform the police, but the police did not register a case and for that reason, she had filed the complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala for taking cognizance under Sections 376/417/420 of the IPC. Further, it was urged in that complaint by the victim to send the complaint for investigation by the police. It appears from the records that the Magistrate having perused the materials disclosed in the complaint directed the police to register a case and investigate the matter. Accordingly, West Agartala Women PS case No. 2017/WAW/031 [31/2017] under Sections 376/417/420 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. It further appears that the petitioner had approached the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala by filing the case being Crl. Petn. No. 59/2017 for quashing the order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the said Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in CR.Misc.16 of 2017 and the FIR as registered as West Agartala Women P.S Case No. 31 of 2017 much before the filing of the final police report by the police. Petn. No. 59/2017 for quashing the order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the said Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in CR.Misc.16 of 2017 and the FIR as registered as West Agartala Women P.S Case No. 31 of 2017 much before the filing of the final police report by the police. According to the petitioner, the order dated 03.04.2017 as passed invoking the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was not in compliance with Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. which provides as follows : “(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.” 3. According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd that no prudent man will believe such contentions but the Magistrate by the order dated 03.04.2017 directed the police to register a specific case and investigate the matter and hence, the said order is perverse and liable to be interfered with. In the complaint there is no revelation when the victim had approached the police station with her complaint or whether she had approached the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura after the police refused to register the case in terms of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. In this regard, the decision of the apex court in Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 has been raised. In that decision the apex court has laid down the law in the following manner : “29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same. 30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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 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 Section 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 the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit 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). 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 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 [Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. : (2014) 2 SCC 1 ] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” [Emphasis added] 4. That apart, Mr. M.G. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there are no materials to make out a case under Section 376 of the IPC as the allegations do make out a case of consensual sex. Hence, the FIR is liable to be interfered with and set aside. 5. The victim, according to the petitioner, has concocted the stories to exert pressure on the petitioner for illegal gain and the complaint has been filed by her maliciously to achieve an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. As such, the proceeding will be a serious abuse of the process of the law. The allegations as made in the complaint are so absurd that the Magistrate ought not have directed the police to register a case on the basis of the complaint and investigate the matter inasmuch as there was no compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. 6. From the other side, Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the prosecutrix [the victim] has categorically submitted that the police has filed the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. with adequate materials which prima-facie would satisfy the requirement of law for taking cognizance and holding trial against the petitioner. Mr. From the other side, Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the prosecutrix [the victim] has categorically submitted that the police has filed the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. with adequate materials which prima-facie would satisfy the requirement of law for taking cognizance and holding trial against the petitioner. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has further submitted that the law as enunciated by the apex court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) has not been defied by the Magistrate while passing the direction under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. From a bare reading of the order dated 03.04.2017, it would surface clearly that the Magistrate considered the materials in the complaint and she had recorded her appreciation in the said order. The order that has been passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be illustrative inasmuch as it may affect the investigation by the statutory agency. There is no infirmity in the said order. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has fairly admitted that the victim did not comply the requirement for filing the complaint as enunciated in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). However, the Magistrate also did not verify that omission. But the said direction is an additional safeguard against the ‘pervert litigation’. The irregularity therefore may not be treated as fatal inasmuch as the result of the police investigation has clearly established that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner and hence, on the face of the records it can no more be said that the allegations made in the complaint are totally without substance. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has referred a decision of the apex court in HDFC Securities Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 640 , where the apex court has held as under : “24. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the complaint has disclosed the commission of an offence which is cognizable in nature and in the light of Lalitha Kumari’s Case [Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. : (2014) 2 SCC 1 ], registration of FIR becomes mandatory. We observe that it is clear from the use of the words "may take cognizance" in the context in which they occur, that the same cannot be equated with "must take cognizance". The word "may" gives discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. We observe that it is clear from the use of the words "may take cognizance" in the context in which they occur, that the same cannot be equated with "must take cognizance". The word "may" gives discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and that the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter, which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence, himself. It is settled that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint, do not disclose the commission of an offence.” 7. In the present controversy the observation of the apex court as referred is not very material and as such, no further discussion is called for in this regard. But in HDFC Securities Ltd. (supra) the apex court has approvingly restated the law as was decided in Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668 , where it was enunciated as under : “13. Where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind. Indian Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the Company. The learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the correct question viz. as to whether the complaint petition, even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion that the respondents herein were personally liable for any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.” [Emphasis added] 8. Vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. Even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.” [Emphasis added] 8. It is apparent from the decision in Maksud Saiyed (supra) that the duty of the Magistrate is to ‘to apply his mind’ while exercising his power under Section 165(3) of the Cr.P.C. He cannot turn the court into a mere post office. He must appreciate the materials and assign reason for direction to investigate. This Court is satisfied that in the present case such appreciation has been made by the Magistrate before directing the police to register a specific case and to investigate the matter. Hence, it would be improper to hold that the said order is suffering from vices of non-application of mind. But at the same time the victim-complainant failed to produce before the Magistrate the proof of filing prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 1254(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, from the complaint, certified copy of which has been filed before this court along with this petition, it appears that the said complaint was filed supported by an affidavit. In the complaint, there is a statement that the police did not register the case despite filing of the written complaint. As such, the irregularity which has occurred cannot be treated as very fatal at this stage. 9. That apart, the police has completed the investigation and filed the final report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. vide charge-sheet No. 76/2017 under Sections 376/493/417 of the IPC. Both the counsel appearing for the parties have fairly admitted that cognizance of the police report has not been taken by the Magistrate as yet. 10. Having regard to the final report filed by the police after completion of the investigation, this court is of the view that due procedure cannot be abruptly curtailed at this stage, inasmuch as the petitioner though filed an additional affidavit brining to the records the incidence of filing the final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., but nowhere it has been averred or asserted that the materials in the final report is so inadequate that it cannot make out any offence committed by the petitioner. The only averment that is available is that the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in Cr.Misc.16/2017 is illegal and the subsequent proceeding is bound to fall through. This court is not persuaded by such logic. If such logic is accepted, it will not only be the pedantic but may also cause miscarriage of justice. Hence, this petition stands dismissed. Before parting with the records, this court is persuaded to observe that the petitioner is at liberty to take all objections in respect of inadequacy of the materials if after taking cognizance, the charge is sought to be framed.