Supreme Court: Direction Of Complaint U/s. 156(3) CrPC Accompanying Affidavit In 'Priyanka Srivastava' Judgment Has No Retrospective Effect

The Court dismissed the Appeals challenging the Order of the Calcutta High Court which dismissed the Criminal Revisions filed by the Appellant for quashing the FIRs registered against them under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the IPC read with Section 66A (a)(b)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The Court upheld the High Court's view that the directions in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) regarding affidavits under Section 156(3) of the CrPC apply prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.

A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah reiterated that “Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bona fidely done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many.”

The Appellants appeared in-person, while AOR Madhumita Bhattacharjee represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellants contended that the FIR was registered in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). The Appellants claimed that since the complaint preceding the FIR was filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, it should have been accompanied by an affidavit, as mandated in Priyanka Srivastava (supra).

The High Court rejected their contentions, holding that the directions in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) were prospective in nature and did not apply to complaints filed before the decision.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court reiterated that while laws enacted by the legislature are presumed to be prospective unless specified otherwise, judicial pronouncements are generally retrospective unless expressly stated to be prospective.

The Court explained that in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Court was seized with an issue where frivolous complaints were being filed before the Magistrate only to harass people and therefore, in order to check this trend, it was directed that all applications before the Court where Section 156(3) Applications were made must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Such a step, the Court explained, could only be prospective in nature, and the same was clearly reflected from the very language used in the Judgment: “In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate…”

“This would signify that what the Court intended was that from now onward it would be necessary that an application would be accompanied by an affidavit,” the Bench explained.

Consequently, the Court held, “We are of the opinion that the High Court was right in holding that the direction that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit, will be prospective in nature. We thus find no merit in these appeals and hence, the appeals stand dismissed.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v. The State Of West Bengal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 278)

Appearance:

Respondents: AOR Madhumita Bhattacharjee; Advocates Debarati Sadhu and Anant

Click here to read/download the Judgment