S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2025

• The dispute arose from a property transaction wherein the complainant had entered into an agreement with the appellants.
  When the transaction was not completed as anticipated, the complainant filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement.
  
  
• Despite this, the complainant also pursued criminal remedies, filing a private complaint before a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC).
  
  
• Notably, no affidavit was filed along with the initial complaint, which is a procedural requirement as per the Priyanka Srivastava judgment.
  
  
• The Magistrate, however, directed the registration of an FIR. The Appellants challenged this, arguing that the FIR was invalid for lack of procedural compliance and that the dispute was entirely civil in nature without any criminal intent from the outset.

1. Whether the failure to file an affidavit at the time of complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC invalidates the proceedings?

2. Whether such a failure is a curable procedural defect?

3. Whether a civil dispute involving breach of contract can be transformed into a criminal case?

4. Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed if the element of criminality is absent and civil remedies have already been invoked?

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, quashed the FIR registered against the appellants.

• The Court reaffirmed that the directions laid down in Priyanka Srivastava are mandatory and must be followed.

• However, the Court clarified that failure to file the affidavit at the initial stage is a curable defect, as long as the affidavit is filed before any substantive order is passed by the Magistrate.

• In this case, since the complainant submitted an affidavit before the Magistrate issued the referral order to register the FIR, the procedural requirement was deemed fulfilled.

• The Court held on the substantive issue, No criminal intent was evident at the inception of the transaction.

• The filing of the criminal complaint appeared to be an afterthought, especially after the property value increased.

• Therefore, allowing criminal proceedings to continue alongside a civil suit for specific performance would be an abuse of process of law.

• The Court also relied on the precedent in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, emphasizing that courts must guard against attempts to give civil disputes a criminal color.

• The ruling reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards to prevent frivolous or vindictive criminal litigation.

• It balances formal procedural compliance with substantive justice, by treating the non-filing of an affidavit as curable, not fatal.

• The decision continues a trend of strict scrutiny of criminal complaints arising from civil disputes, aimed at preventing harassment through the criminal justice system.

• The Court’s reaffirmation of Priyanka Srivastava enhances judicial discipline and ensures that Section 156(3) is not misused as an automatic trigger for FIR registration.