+91 964 334 1948
01 Aug 2025, 04:33 AM
The Supreme Court on July 31 reaffirmed that the procedural safeguards laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) are mandatory for complaints under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., requiring the complainant to submit an affidavit affirming the complaint's genuineness and disclosing prior litigation history.
The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the case where the Appellant challenged the High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR registered against them. One of the arguments made by the Appellants was that the Magistrate's direction to register an FIR against the Appellants was invalid, as the complainant failed to submit an affidavit verifying the complaint's genuineness while seeking the invocation of the magistrate's power to order FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Although the Supreme Court allowed the Appellant's appeal, quashing FIRs registered against them, it didn't agree with their argument to quash the FIR only on the ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava's ruling.
The Court held that the ruling in Priyanka Srivastava did not apply in this case, as the complainant had submitted an affidavit prior to the registration of the FIR, even though it was not filed at the time of the initial complaint. The Court observed that the lapse was curable and thus did not amount to a violation of the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava.
“The High Court has taken a view that this is a curable defect since before the referral order on the PCR by the ACMM for registering an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the required formalities were done. In our considered opinion, this approach cannot be labelled erroneous.”, the court said.
Reiterating the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah observed:
“We sum up our conclusions on this score as follows:
(i) Directions issued in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) 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 requisite affidavit, such order/any consequential orders/proceedings can be quashed on the sole ground of non-compliance with Priyanka Srivastava (supra).”
In support, the Court also relied on the recent precedents of Ramesh Kumar Bung v State of Telangana (2024) and Kaniskh Sinha v State of West Bengal (2025) to hold that the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava's case are mandatory, and prospective, which means if the complaint is filed without an affidavit, it cannot be declared invalid on that count, noting that the defect was curable as it is permissble to submit affidavit after the complaint but before magistrate's order directing FIR.
Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court observed:
"Therefore, if after the filing of the complaint/application but before any order thereon is passed, such requirement is allowed to be fulfilled/complied with by the complainant, it would not, in our view, run counter to the law exposited in Priyanka Srivastava (supra)."
Cause Title: S. N. VIJAYALAKSHMI & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 758
Click here to read/download the judgment
Also From Judgment: Criminal Case Should Be Quashed When Civil Case Is Pending On Same Issue & Criminality Element Is Absent : Supreme Court