Priyanka Srivastava Affidavit Rule Under Section 156(3) CrPC Is Prospective: Supreme Court Clarifies in Kanishk Sinha & Another Vs State of West Bengal & Another
Background and Context
The Supreme Court of India recently rendered an important clarification on the temporal applicability of the affidavit requirement mandated by its earlier landmark ruling in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287. The core question before the Court was whether that direction — requiring applications filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be supported by a sworn affidavit — could be made applicable to complaints that had already been lodged before the Priyanka Srivastava judgment was delivered.
The matter arose out of a challenge by Kanishk Sinha and his wife (Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) against an order dated 27.06.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, which had dismissed their criminal revisions in connection with two separate FIRs registered at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata.
The Two FIRs at the Centre of the Dispute
FIR No. 179 of 2010
The first FIR, registered as FIR No. 179 of 2010 dated 27.04.2010, was filed by one Keyur Majumder. It alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 66A(a)(b)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The broad nature of allegations included forgery, fraud, deception, cheating, reputational damage, unlawful extraction of money, threats, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy.
FIR No. 298 of 2011
The second FIR, registered as FIR No. 298 of 2011 dated 08.06.2011, originated differently. The complainant, Supriti Bandopadhyay, had initially approached the Magistrate by way of a complaint. The Magistrate, exercising jurisdiction under Section 190 read with Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, directed the registration of an FIR. Offences alleged included those under Sections 466, 469, and 471 read with 120B(ii) of the IPC.
Notably, the complaint filed before the Magistrate leading to the second FIR was not accompanied by an affidavit — which became the principal ground of challenge raised by the appellants before the High Court and subsequently before the Supreme Court.
The Appellants' Contention
Appellant No. 1 appeared in person before both the High Court and the Supreme Court and advanced a specific legal argument: that all judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India operate retrospectively, and since the ruling in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287 did not expressly restrict its operation to future complaints alone, the affidavit requirement ought to have applied even to the complaint made in 2010–2011.
The appellants contended that both FIRs were motivated and false and sought their quashing, but the primary legal issue crystallised around the retrospective versus prospective character of the Priyanka Srivastava direction.