Introduction:

In a recent order, the Supreme Court reiterated the mandatory nature of directions issued in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 287, emphasizing the necessity of affidavits in applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The division bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, addressed a criminal appeal from the Telangana High Court, which had refused to quash an FIR, invoking several provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The apex court’s decision sheds light on the significance of affidavits and the responsibility they place on the applicants.

Arguments:

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the Telangana High Court’s order, which declined to quash the FIR against the accused. The High Court, while upholding the FIR, also noted that the non-filing of the affidavit does not invalidate the proceedings to quash the entire complaint. The apex court, upon hearing the matter, observed a belated submission of the affidavit by the informant. In doing so, the court underscored the mandatory nature of the directions in Priyanka Srivastava, requiring affidavits in Section 156(3) applications.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court affirmed the mandatory nature of the directions in Priyanka Srivastava, stating that affidavits in Section 156(3) applications are a crucial element in supporting the invocation of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. The court acknowledged the delayed submission of the affidavit in the present case but did not delve into the merits, as the investigation was still ongoing. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition without making substantive comments on the case.