ORDER : (PER SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) 1) Present Petition seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned Order dated 26.09.2019 passed in Cri./Misc./Appln. No.362 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune and the consequent F.I.R. bearing No.1001 of 2019, dated 12.10.2019, registered with Hadapsar Police Station, Pune, under Sections 3(1)(r), (a), (s), 2(vii), (q), (u), (v) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC & ST Act”), and Sections 166, 167, 120B, 504, 506, 499, 500 and 503 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). 2) Heard Mr. Jha, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Shinde, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Yadav, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 4) The facts giving rise to this Petition are that, on 11.09.2019, Respondent No.2 filed a Criminal Misc. Appln. No.362 of 2019 before the learned Additional Judge, Pune. Therein he alleged the aforesaid offences under the SC & ST Act and IPC against the Petitioners and prayed to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and direct the Police Station concerned to register a crime for the alleged offences and investigate. The learned Judge of the trial Court considered the Misc. Appln. and passed the impugned Order. Consequently, Hadapsar Police Station, Pune registered the impugned FIR bearing No.1001 of 2019, dated 12.10.2019 for the alleged offences. The relevant paragraph of the impugned Order reads:- "Considering the nature of the offence, this court thinks it proper to direct investigation as per section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Original compliant be sent to Hadapsar Police Station for investigation as per section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. ACP of the concerned Zone including Hadapsar Police Station area is directed to make investigation into the present complaint." 5) As stated in the impugned FIR, the case of Respondent No.2 is that, large scale illegal businesses of liquor, gambling, narcotics, betting including prostitution have been operating within the area of Pune Loni Kalbhor. Consequently, youngsters in the said vicinity and others became addicted to the liquor, contraband etc. and committing serious crimes. Their family life has been ruined. It is alleged that Petitioners are taking haptas/extorting money from the said illegal businesses. Consequently, youngsters in the said vicinity and others became addicted to the liquor, contraband etc. and committing serious crimes. Their family life has been ruined. It is alleged that Petitioners are taking haptas/extorting money from the said illegal businesses. Respondent No.2 filed a representation with the Police Superintendent (Rural), Pune on 05.09.2019 seeking inquiry against the Petitioners and to close down the said illegal activities. The Petitioners learnt about the said representation. Therefore, on 06.09.2019 and 07.09.2019 Petitioner No.2 repeatedly called Respondent No.2 on phone and told him that he wanted to meet him. Then, as suggested by Petitioner No.2, on 07.09.2019 at about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. Respondent No.2 went to hotel Pranam at Hadapsar. Petitioners were present there, waiting for him and they forcibly took him inside the hotel. Thereafter, the Petitioners threatened Respondent No.2 to take back his representation/call off Agitation otherwise they would not leave him alive. Petitioners were aware that Respondent No.2 belonging to Hindu Mahar social status, however, they insulted him on castes making derogatory remarks. It is alleged that, Petitioner No.2 was on police duty on that day. It is alleged that, on the same day, Respondent no.2 visited at Hadapsar Police Station to file the complaint and narrated the incident. However, the Thane Amaldar did not register his complaint and suggested him i.e. Respondent No.2 to meet Mr. Raghunath Jadav, Senior Police Inspector, who also avoided to entertain his complaint stating that no incident had occurred as he alleged. However, Mr. Jadhav told him that he would instruct to record his N.C. complaint of abusing. Then Mr. Jadhav, sent Respondent No.2 to Mr. Chikhale but the later did not entertain him. Thus, the police avoided to record his complaint against the Petitioners because they are police. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 phoned the DCP Mr. Bawase to get his grievance addressed, but it did not help. Therefore, on 08.09.2019 Respondent No.2 filed a written complaint with Hadapsar Police Station for the alleged offences. However, police avoided to register the said complaint. Therefore, Respondent No.2 filed the said Misc. Appln. No.362 of 2019 and it led to passing of the impugned Order. 6) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that brother of the Respondent No.2 is an accused in FIR No.351 of 2019 registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune under Sections 307, 341, 336, 353, 332, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 109 of IPC. Appln. No.362 of 2019 and it led to passing of the impugned Order. 6) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that brother of the Respondent No.2 is an accused in FIR No.351 of 2019 registered with Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune under Sections 307, 341, 336, 353, 332, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 109 of IPC. Respondent No.2 was exerting pressure on the Petitioners to drop the name of his brother named Balasaheb Dabhade from the said FIR. However, the Petitioners did not succumb to the pressure. Therefore, Respondent No.2 filed the said complaint out of vengeance. He submits that, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 and Sayed Anwar Ahmed & Anr Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 3972 , before filing the said Misc. Appln. with the trial Court, the complainant should have invoked the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. but the said provision was not followed. The Criminal M.A. No. 362 of 2019 was required to be supported with Affidavit but it was not. Therefore, it is erroneous on the part of the learned trial Court to pass the impugned Order thereby directing for registration of the FIR and investigation invoking Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said Order may be quashed and set aside the said FIR. 7) The learned APP submitted that the Petitioners have committed a serious offence. The Misc. Appln. filed by Respondent No.2 clearly made out the alleged offences. Therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court entertained the said Application and passed the impugned Order. As such, the impugned Order is lawful. Hence, the impugned Order and the consequent FIR may not be quashed and set aside invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8) Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 supported the impugned Order and the subject FIR. His submissions are in line with the submissions made by the learned APP. 9) In the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) it is held that, there has to be prior application under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. before filing an Application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Both the aspects should be clearly spell out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. 9) In the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) it is held that, there has to be prior application under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. before filing an Application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Both the aspects should be clearly spell out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. Therefore, in the case in hand, before filing the complaint, Misc. Appln. No.362 of 2019, the Respondent No.2 should have complied with the provisions of Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. The Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. provides that, "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." 10) In the case in hand, the learned Judge overlooked the aforesaid non-compliance of Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. before passing the impugned Order. Bare look at the impugned Order shows that, it has been passed by the learned trial Court considering the nature of the offence, it is thought proper to direct investigation as per section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. However, not a single reason is recorded by the learned Judge of the trial Court as to why he was satisfied to pass the impugned Order. Similarly, from the impugned Order it is not intelligible as to how the learned Judge verified the truth of the Misc. Appln. and veracity of the allegations therein. According to Respondent No.2 he is the Chief Editor of the newspaper named as 'Sa Dipsagar'. He is an activist and President of 'Republican Parivartan Sena'. He wanted to carry out an agitation. Therefore, the learned Judge was expected to record some reasons about his satisfaction as to the prima facie case of the cognizable offence and necessity to pass the impugned Order. He is an activist and President of 'Republican Parivartan Sena'. He wanted to carry out an agitation. Therefore, the learned Judge was expected to record some reasons about his satisfaction as to the prima facie case of the cognizable offence and necessity to pass the impugned Order. 11) In the backdrop, in our opinion, before passing the impugned Order the learned Judge failed to properly consider the complaint and that, there is non-compliance of the provisions of Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the Complainant. Thus, the learned Judge acted mechanically and passed the impugned Order. in the backdrop, the impugned Order is not sustainable in law. Consequently, continuation of the impugned FIR would be an abuse of process of law. 12) Our conclusion above is well supported by the settled position of law and as has been enunciated by this Court in the case of Sayed Ahmed (supra) that, "While dealing with a complaint seeking an action under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate cannot act mechanically. He is required to apply his mind to the contents of the Complaint and the documents produced along with the Complaint. An Order passed on the said complaint must record reasons in brief which should indicate application of mind by the Magistrate. However, it not necessary to record detailed reasons. The power under Sub-Section (3) of Section 156 is discretionary. Only because on plain reading of the Complaint, a case of commission of cognizable offence is made out, an Order of investigation should not be mechanically passed. In a given case, the learned Magistrate can go in to the issue of the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. The learned Magistrate must also consider the other relevant aspects such as the inordinate delay on the part of the Complainant. The nature of the transaction and pendency of civil proceedings on the subject are also relevant considerations. Necessary averments recording compliance with Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. should be incorporated with material particulars. Moreover, the documents in support of the said averments must be filed on record." 13) The subject complaint was also not supported by duly sworn affidavit of the Complainant. Necessary averments recording compliance with Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. should be incorporated with material particulars. Moreover, the documents in support of the said averments must be filed on record." 13) The subject complaint was also not supported by duly sworn affidavit of the Complainant. As held in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), this is one of the requirements in respect of the complaint /application seeking to refer such complaint / application to the concerned police station under Section 156 (3) of Cr.PC. for registration of a crime, its investigation and submission of necessary report. The decision in the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is followed in the case of Babu Venkatesh and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., Cr.Appeal No.252 of 2022. 14) Conspectus of the above discussion is that, the impugned Order dated 26.09.2019 passed in Cri./Misc./Appln. No.362 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune and the consequent F.I.R. bearing No.1001 of 2019, dated 12.10.2019, registered with Hadapsar Police Station, Pune, both are liable to be quashed and accordingly, are quashed and set aside. 15) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).