New Delhi, August 1, 2025 

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a sworn affidavit is mandatory when filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), reinforcing its earlier precedent laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015).

A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that failure to file an affidavit cannot be treated as a curable defect after the application has already been submitted. This affirmation came while upholding the view that such a procedural lapse strikes at the very maintainability of the plea under Section 156(3).

“The direction in Priyanka Srivastava is binding. The affidavit is not a mere formality it is a mandatory safeguard against frivolous and vexatious complaints that seek to misuse criminal law machinery,” the Bench observed.

Section 156(3) empowers a Magistrate to order a police investigation into a cognizable offence before taking cognizance. However, since the 2015 ruling in Priyanka Srivastava, the apex court made it compulsory for complainants to support such applications with a duly sworn affidavit, confirming the truthfulness of allegations and preventing abuse of the process.

The court held that an application without an affidavit must not be entertained, and once it is filed improperly, the defect cannot be rectified later as an afterthought.

The Bench explained that mandatory compliance ensures judicial time is not wasted on baseless criminal complaints, and false allegations are discouraged through potential penal consequences under Section 340 CrPC for filing false affidavits.

“The affidavit acts as a deterrent and lends credibility to the complainant’s claim. If we allow such defects to be cured post-filing, it would dilute the very rationale behind the requirement,” the court noted.

In the present case, a litigant filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC without attaching a sworn affidavit. Although the complainant later submitted the affidavit before the Magistrate passed any order, the High Court quashed the proceedings, stating the requirement was not fulfilled at the time of filing.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the application was fundamentally defective at the inception and should not have been registered without the affidavit.

Case Title: X vs. Y & Anr.