JUDGMENT : P.G. M PATIL, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the I Addl. JMFC III Court, Raichur in P.C.No.168/2017 and also to quash FIR in Crime No.151/2017 of Idnapoor Police Station, Raichur. 2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 177, 182, 323, 468, and 471 of IPC. Further the complainant has named Mohammed Jaffar, Proprietor of Kissan Electricals, Raichur, the Superintending Engineer (Ele), O & M Circle Office, GESCOM, Raichur, The Asst. Executive Engineer (Ele), Works Unit, Raichur Division Office, GESCOM, Raichur and the Junior Engineer (Ele), Works Unit, Raichur Division Office, GESCOM, Raichur as accused Nos.2 to 5 respectively. 3. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. Respondent No.2 has alleged in the complaint that the petitioner herein fraudulently, by furnishing false information to the Government, has availed the benefits under the scheme of Gangakalyana of K.M.D.C. The said scheme envisages power supply for 5 H.P. borewell for the agricultural land. He has stated that he is the owner of an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.157/2 measuring 44.01 acres situated at Talamari village, Tq. and Dist. Raichur. By virtue of being an agriculturist, he was chosen as beneficiary under the Gangakalyana of K.M.D.C. scheme and the petitioner herein by furnishing false information to the Government, has obtained power supply to his lands under the said scheme, and it is a specific allegation of the complainant that the petitioner in collusion with other persons named in the complaint has obtained the power supply for his land which was supposed to be provided to the complainant. The complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate who directed the PSI, Idapanoor police station to investigate the matter and submit report by exercising his powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The said order was passed on 14.08.2017 which is sought to be quashed in the present petition. The PSI in pursuance of the order of the JMFC registered Crime No.151/2017 which is also liable to be quashed. 4. Notice to respondent No.2 was duly served, but remained un-represented. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader. 6. The PSI in pursuance of the order of the JMFC registered Crime No.151/2017 which is also liable to be quashed. 4. Notice to respondent No.2 was duly served, but remained un-represented. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that absolutely there is nothing in the complaint as to how he is aggrieved by the action of the petitioner and other accused persons. The private complaint was filed without accompanying the affidavit of the complainant and the same was referred to police for investigation. Therefore, the complaint itself was not properly filed as it is mandatory for the complainant to file an affidavit along with complaint. The learned Magistrate without application of mind has simply referred the complaint for investigation. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition. However, he further submitted that filing of an affidavit along with a private complaint is necessary. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in, (2015) 6 SCC 287 in support of his argument that it is mandatory to file an affidavit along with the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 30 of the judgment as observed as follows: "30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.PC 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 frame work of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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 frame work 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." 9. Therefore, now it is necessary for the complainant who files a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.PC to file affidavit in which he should clearly spelt out as to the allegations made in the complaint to see that no false complaint is made. In paragraph 31, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held as follows: "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 in 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 are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR." 10. Therefore, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate when a private complaint is filed without supporting affidavit, the complaint cannot be entertained. Admittedly in the present case, the complainant along with complaint has not filed the necessary affidavit as can be seen from the copy of the complaint. Therefore, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate when a private complaint is filed without supporting affidavit, the complaint cannot be entertained. Admittedly in the present case, the complainant along with complaint has not filed the necessary affidavit as can be seen from the copy of the complaint. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate to the effect that the detail investigation is required in the case and hence it is referred to the police for investigation is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the order of this Court in the case of Sri. S. Raghunath V/s State of Karnataka and another passed in Criminal Petition No.7703/2015, dated 03.12.2015 in which also this Court has held that "Since the complaint is not supported with an affidavit of the complainant; no list of witnesses is annexed to the complaint, it does not address the procedure contemplated under Section 195(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.PC in respect of the offence under Sections 209 and 211 of IPC, that vitiates the order of reference." This Court in the case of Shivanna and others V/s N.E.K.R.T.C. Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Kalaburagi, in Criminal Petition No.201133/2015 order dated 17.11.2015 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava stated supra and has held that the learned Magistrate acted mechanically in referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. though the complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit as mandated by the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava stated supra. Therefore, this Court quashed the proceedings in the private complaint and the crime registered by the police consequently upon reference of the compliant. In the present case also complainant has not given the list of witnesses in the complaint nor filed affidavit and the learned Magistrate without application of mind has simply referred the complaint to the respondent No.1 police under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC which is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the petition is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the I Addl. Therefore, the petition is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the I Addl. JMFC III Court, Raichur in P.C.No.168/2017 consequently registration of FIR in Crime No.151/2017 of Idnapoor Police Station, Raichur are hereby quashed.