The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of filing an affidavit with an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and the acceptance of the argument that such a requirement should be adopted prospectively after the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava's case.

1. This revisional application has been filed by six accused petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 18th December, 2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in case no. C-1545/2008 on an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 as complainant under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. In the impugned order direction was given to O.C. Burrabazar P.S. for investigation treating the complaint as F.I.R. At the very outset, it is pointed out that the impugned order has been passed filling up the blanks in a printed form.

2. In the revisional application, inter alia, petitioners have contended that the opposite party no. 2 lodged the complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta on 18th December, 2008 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. and said complaint was forwarded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the O.C., Burrabazar P.S. for investigation treating the complaint as F.I.R. Petitioners have claimed that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence. Said allegations relate to civil dispute between the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioners. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. No document was produced along with the complaint. There is no element of cheating or criminal breach of trust or criminal conspiracy against the accused petitioners in the complaint but First Information Report has been registered against them for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C). The petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order and the proceeding initiated on the complaint of the opposite party no. 2.

3. At the time of hearing the opposite party no. 1 the State of West Bengal did not participate but the opposite party no. 2 who is defacto complainant in the Court below contested the revisional application. The opposite party no. 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition challenging the contention of the revisional application. Then petitioners have filed one affidavit-in-reply.

4. In course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the face value of the complaint which was treated as F.I.R. no cognizable offence is prima facie made out. According to him, before invoking power of learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. there must be compliance of Section 154 (1) and Section 154 (3) of the Cr. P. C. but there is no specific averment to that effect in the complaint and no document to substantiate such compliance was filed along with the complaint. He advanced his argument that the complaint should have been supported by affidavit. In support of his argument he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 6 SCC 285. He submitted that said judgment law has retrospective effect under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In support of his argument relating to retrospective effect he relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of B. A. Linga Reddy and Others vs. Karnataka State Transport Authorities and Others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 515 and Yakub Abdul Razal Memon vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2015) 3 SCC (cri) 673. He also cited one unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in the case of Shankar Lal Khambra vs. Malti Verma and Others. He also relied on a decision of this bench in the case of Ramesh Kr. Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2016) vol. 3, Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 662 in which the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Utter Pradesh and Others and M/s. Thermax Ltd. and Others Vs. K.M. Johny and Others have been followed regarding the allegations on facts made in the complaint of that case. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the allegatio