Priyanka Srivastava Affidavit Rule Prospective for Section 156(3) Complaints: SC

Kanishk Sinha & Another Vs State of West Bengal & Another (Supreme Court of India)

Summary: The Supreme Court considered whether the direction in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, requiring applications under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be supported by an affidavit, could be applied to complaints lodged before that judgment. Kanishk Sinha and his wife challenged the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 27.06.2024 dismissing their criminal revisions concerning two FIRs registered at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata.

The first FIR, No.179 of 2010 dated 27.04.2010, alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 469 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 66A(a)(b)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The second FIR, No.298 of 2011 dated 08.06.2011, arose from a complaint before the Magistrate, who exercised powers under Section 190 read with Section 156(3) of the CrPC and directed registration of an FIR. It alleged offences under Sections 466, 469 and 471 read with 120B(ii) of the IPC.

The allegations in both matters were stated to relate to forgery, fraud, deception, cheating, damage to reputation, unlawful extraction of money, threat, misrepresentation and criminal conspiracy. Six revisions had been filed before the Calcutta High Court concerning charge sheets and certain interim orders, but the issue material to the present appeals was the appellants’ contention that the second FIR had been registered on a complaint under Section 156(3) which was not accompanied by an affidavit, contrary to the direction in Priyanka Srivastava. The Single Judge of the High Court held that the direction could operate only prospectively and therefore did not apply to complaints lodged in 2010-2011.