ORDER : This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short hereafter) with prayer to quash Annexure A3 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.989/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery arising out of Crime No.351/2023 of Pazhayannur Police Station, Thrissur District. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. 3. I have perused Annexure-A3 final report and other relevant documents. 4. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code by the accused. 5. The prosecution allegation herein is that the 1st accused herein married the defacto complainant on 28.10.2014 as per Hindu religious customs and they lived together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home. While so, the husband/1st accused and the mother of the 1st accused/2nd accused, subjected her to cruelty. The further allegation is that during this stage, accused 1 and 2 misappropriated her gold ornaments and thereby committed breach of trust as well as cheating without giving back the gold ornaments to the defacto complainant. This crime was registered when the defacto complainant lodged Annexure-A1complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate directed investigation by the police. On completion of investigation, the police filed Annexure-A3 final report alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in this case along with the complaint filed by the complainant, which led to cognizance of this case, an affidavit mandated as per the decision "Babu Venkatesh and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another 2022(5) SCC 639 " not produced. Therefore, the proceedings are vitiated and for the said reason alone, the quashment sought for is liable to be allowed. Therefore, the proceedings are vitiated and for the said reason alone, the quashment sought for is liable to be allowed. It is also submitted that, though this Court in (1) "Don Paul v. State of Kerala 2024 (3) KHC 617 " referring (2) "Midhun v. State of Kerala and Others 2022 KHC 2" held that violation of preconditions to be satisfied before seeking investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C would not make the investigation and final report thereof non-est, this Court did not specifically consider the impact of non filing of affidavit in the said case. 7. In paragraph No:10 of Don Paul v. State of Kerala (supra) this Court set out the preconditions to be satisfied before seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C as under: “10. Retorting to the first question, it is answered that the following preconditions to be satisfied before seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before a Magistrate: 1) Where applications under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. 2) In an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also verify the veracity of the allegations. 3) Prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there have to be applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 8. Again in paragraph 13 this Court held as under: “On reading the facts of the present case where even though compliance of S.154(1) and S.154(3) of Cr.P.C was not established before ordering investigation under S.156(3), on investigation, a charge alleging commission of the offence punishable under S. 406 of IPC was already filed after detailed investigation. In the instant case also the petitioner did not challenge the proceedings before filing final report by the police. In such a case, in view of the protection under S.465(2) of Cr.P.C, violation or non-compliance of the preconditions would not make the investigation and the final report thereof non-est. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance doesn't require any interference since there is no failure of justice involved. In such a case, in view of the protection under S.465(2) of Cr.P.C, violation or non-compliance of the preconditions would not make the investigation and the final report thereof non-est. In such view of the matter, the order of cognizance doesn't require any interference since there is no failure of justice involved. Holding so, this Crl.M.C stands dismissed with direction to the Magistrate to expedite the trial and disposal of C.C No. 878 /2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court–I, Vaikom, at any rate, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 9. It is true that this Court not specifically considered the impact of non filing of affidavit along with the private complaint in Don Paul (supra). But it was held that one of the preconditions to be satisfied while filing complaints seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure is filing of an affidavit along with the complaint/s duly sworn by the complainant/s supporting the contention raised in the applications, who seeks/seek the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. After setting out the parameters in Don paul (supra), it was held in paragraph 13 that in view of the protection under S.465(2) of Cr.P.C, violation or non-compliance of the preconditions would not make the investigation and the final report thereof non-est. Thus applying the ratio in Don paul (supra), even non filing of affidavit also is a curable irregularity under Section 465(2) of Cr.P.C. In view of the above discussion, it is held that non filing of an affidavit along with complaint/s by itself would not make the investigation and further proceedings non-est once the investigation was completed and cognizance was taken by the Court since the same is also a curable irregularity in terms of Section 465(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners further that, in order to attract offence under Section 420 of IPC, the offencess referred in paragraph No.11 of the Apex court judgment reported in "2024 KHC 6039 Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station" shall be complied and in the present case no such compliance. 11. In paragraph No. 11 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under:- "11. 11. In paragraph No. 11 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under:- "11. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made." 12. On going through the final report with endorsement regarding cognizance, it is noticed that the court took cognizance for only two offences, viz. 498-A as well as 406, and no cognizance taken for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, this argument has no relevance in the facts of this case and is repelled. 13. In so far as the offence under Section 498-A is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of the Apex Court reported in "2023 KHC 6809 Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh" to contend that general and omnibus allegations would not make offence under Section 498 of IPC, unless the allegations are so specifically raised. This legal position is not in dispute. 14. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that the ingredients to attract offences punishable under Section 498A and 406 of IPC are not made out, prima facie. Thus even otherwise quashment sought for is liable to be allowed. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor took attention of this Court to Annexure-A1 complaint, with particular mention to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Annexure-A1 complaint having 13 pages describing every overt acts at the instance of the accused persons in minute niceties to contend that the quashment prayed for cannot be allowed, since the prosecution records made out sufficient materials, prima facie, to constitute the offences alleged to be committed by the accused. 16. 16. Indubitably, as held by the Apex Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh’s case (supra), and considered by this Court in Shyamala Bhaskar v. State of Kerala, [2024 KHC OnLine 429 : 2024 KLT OnLine 1674], general, omnibus and sweeping allegations without bringing on record specific overt acts are not sufficient to go for trial and cases of such nature are liable to be quashed. 17. On perusal of the complaint containing 13 pages, it could be gathered that there are allegations in paragraphs 4 and 5 that the parents of the defacto complainant given 15 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage and the same was entrusted with the 2nd accused, the mother of the 1st accused, as a trustee, along with a chain with Thali also, excluding Thali. Later, the defacto complainant purchased another chain by contacting her father and used the said chain along with Thali. It is alleged that though they were informed that the gold ornaments should be kept in a locker in the joint names of the defacto complainant and the 2nd accused, the 2nd accused kept the key of the locker and the gold ornaments not returned and thereby committed breach of trust. The further allegation is that accused 1, 3 and 4 used to harass the defacto complainant demanding more dowry. Thus the prosecution allegation would suggest, prima facie, materials, warranting trial of the matter facilitating the prosecution to adduce evidence and the ratio in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh’s case (supra) has no application in the present case. In such a case, quashment would not be possible and, therefore, quashment sought for is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, this petition stands dismissed. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the jurisdictional court for information and further steps.