Failure to Follow Section 156(3) Guidelines Fatal to Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Case

In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners, Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Anr., for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court ruled that the application made by the opposite party lacked the necessary affidavit and documentation as prescribed by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), thereby invalidating the criminal case.

"Mandatory Provisions Under Section 156(3) of CrPC Cannot Be Ignored"

Bibhas Ranjan De J. emphasized that the provisions under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of CrPC must be followed when filing an application under Section 156(3). The court ruled that failure to comply with these guidelines renders the proceedings defective.

The case originated from a dispute between the parties over the alleged forgery of documents related to a partnership. The opposite party No. 2, who was a partner in M/s. Annapurna Processing and Finishing Factory, filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners had forged his signatures on documents that falsely showed his retirement from the partnership and the entry of the petitioner No. 2 into the firm.

The case began in 2008 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471) and was taken up by the Dum Dum Police Station. A charge sheet was filed in 2010, but the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, citing multiple legal violations.

The main legal issue was whether the complaint under Section 156(3) was filed in compliance with the procedural requirements outlined by the Supreme Court. The petitioners' counsel, Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, argued that the complaint was defective as it failed to follow the guidelines established in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.. He emphasized that no affidavit or supporting documents were submitted with the complaint, a mandatory requirement under the law.

Counsel for the opposite party contended that the Priyanka Srivastava guidelines were not applicable retrospectively, as the complaint was filed before the 2015 decision.

The court, after reviewing the arguments and facts, concluded that the Priyanka Srivastava judgment's procedural requirements apply to all cases, irrespective of when the complaint was filed. The court stated:

"The Hon’ble Apex Court only reminded us to comply with those mandatory provisions and further crystallized the process of compliance."

The court held that since the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was not supported by an affidavit or the necessary documents, the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

The High Court allowed the revision application (CRR 2822 of 2017) and quashed the criminal proceedings. The decision reinforces the need for strict compliance with procedural requirements in criminal cases.

Date of Decision: October 1, 2024

Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.