1. Criminal proceedings involving allegations of forgery and fraud — Challenge to FIR registered under Section 156(3) CrPC for lack of supporting affidavit. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 411
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Kanishk Sinha & Another – Appellants
Versus
The State Of West Bengal & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 966-971 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 86098614 of 2024)
Decided On : 27-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment of Court will always be retrospective in nature unless judgment itself specifically states that judgment will operate prospectively.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 175(3)] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 61(2), 318, 336, 340 and 340(2)] – Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 66A (a)(b)(c) – Direction for police investigation – All applications before Court where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are made must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by applicant who seeks to invoke jurisdiction of Magistrate – Such a step could only be prospective in nature – What Court intended was that from now onward it would be necessary that an application would be accompanied by an affidavit – High Court was right in holding that direction that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit, will be prospective in nature. (Paras 4, 5 and 6)
(B) Statute Law – Law of prospective and retrospective operation – Whereas a law made by Legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in statute itself about its retrospective operation, reverse is true for law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by Court – Judgment of Court will always be retrospective in nature unless judgment itself specifically states that judgment will operate prospectively – Prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bonafidely done something with understanding of law as it existed at relevant point of time – It is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Appellants before this Court are husband and wife (appellant no.1 & 2, respectively), who are aggrieved by an order dated 27.06.2024 passed by Single Judge of Calcutta High Court by which criminal revisions of present appellants were dismissed. Appellants are accused in two different cases, first registered as a First Information Report under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 66A (a)(b)(c) of Information Technology Act, 2000.
Findings of Court:
Charge-sheet has been filed in both cases. In case charges have not been framed by Court, then appellants would be at liberty to move application for their discharge, which shall be considered in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the requirement for an affidavit in Section 156(3) CrPC applications, as per precedent, applies retrospectively or prospectively. (Para 3 )
3. Judicial interpretations are generally retrospective unless specified otherwise, but specific phrasing in the relevant precedent indicates a prospective application to curb frivolous complaints. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. Directions requiring affidavits for Section 156(3) CrPC applications operate prospectively when the court indicates a change in circumstances through phrases like a stage has come. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court order upheld; liberty granted to seek discharge if charges are not yet framed. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Is the law laid down by a Constitutional Court generally prospective or retrospective?
Law interpreted by a Constitutional Court is generally retrospective unless the judgment specifically states it will operate prospectively to avoid undue hardship or to prevent unsettling long-settled matters. (Para 3 )
7. Does the requirement for an affidavit in Section 156(3) CrPC applications under Priyanka Srivastava apply retrospectively?
No, the requirement is prospective. The court determined that the phrase a stage has come in this country signifies that the mandate for affidavits applies to applications filed from that point forward. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. What is the purpose of requiring an affidavit for applications under Section 156(3) CrPC?
The requirement is intended to prevent the filing of frivolous complaints in a routine manner without responsibility, which are often used solely to harass individuals or settle scores. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants before this Court are husband and wife (appellant no.1 & 2, respectively), who are aggrieved by an order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by which the criminal revisions of the present appellants were dismissed. The appellants are accused in two different cases, the first registered as a First Information Report (‘FIR’) at police station Bhowanipur, Kolkata as FIR No.179 of 2010 dated 27.04.2010 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), read with Section 66A (a)(b)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’). In the instant case, the complainant was Keyur Majumder. The second FIR which was initially moved as a complaint before the Ld. Magistrate, and the Ld. Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 190 read with 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) directed registration of an FIR. The complainant in this case was Supriti Bandopadhyay, and the second FIR was registered as FIR No.298 of 2011 dated 08.06.2011 at police station Bhowanipur, Kolkata under Sections 466, 469, 471 read with 120B(ii) of IPC.
3. The nature of allegations in these two cases is similar against the appellants, relating to forgery, fraud, deception, cheating, damage caused to reputation, unlawful extraction of money, threat, misrepresentation and criminal conspiracy etc. In fact, six revisions were filed by the appellants before the Calcutta High Court regarding the filing of charge sheet, as well as against certain interim orders passed by the Lower Court. But that is not very relevant. What is relevant is the only point which has been raised by the appellants in their revisions before the High Court, which was that not only are these FIRs motivated and false, and thus liable to be quashed, but also that the second FIR has been registered on the complaint which was filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, and it was not accompanied by an affidavit and therefore, the law as laid down by this Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 has been violated as all such complaints should now be accompanied by an affidavit according to Priyanka Srivastava (supra). The learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that the directions of this Court in the above case could only operate prospectively and will not have any retrospective application, and will thus not be applicable to the complaint lodged against the appellants in the year 20102011.
The appellant no.1, all the same, who argued in person before the High Court, emphasised before this Court and would argue that all the judgments of this Court are retrospective in nature and therefore it cannot be said that this would not be retrospective particularly when it has not been specifically stated in the judgment of Priyanka Srivastava (supra) that it will operate prospectively.
Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear. 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.
4. In Priyanka Srivastava (supra) this Court was seized with an issue where frivolous complaints were being filed before the Magist
