Introduction
Date of the Judgment: February 27, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 278
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Are all judgments of the Supreme Court automatically applicable to past events? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this important question regarding the retrospective application of its judgments, specifically concerning the requirement of filing an affidavit along with complaints under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). This issue arose in the context of a case involving allegations of forgery, fraud, and criminal conspiracy. The bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case involves appellants Kanishk Sinha and his wife, who are challenging an order by the Calcutta High Court that dismissed their criminal revisions. The appellants are accused in two separate FIRs:
- ✓ FIR No. 179 of 2010: Registered on April 27, 2010, at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata, under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with Section 66A(a)(b)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complainant was Keyur Majumder.
- ✓ FIR No. 298 of 2011: Registered on June 8, 2011, at the same police station under Sections 466, 469, 471 read with 120B(ii) of the IPC. This FIR was initially a complaint before the Magistrate, who directed the registration of an FIR under Section 190 read with 156(3) of the CrPC. The complainant was Supriti Bandopadhyay.
The allegations against the appellants in both cases are similar, including forgery, fraud, deception, cheating, damage to reputation, unlawful extraction of money, threat, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 27, 2010 | FIR No. 179 of 2010 registered at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata. |
| 2010-2011 | Complaint lodged against the appellants. |
| June 8, 2011 | FIR No. 298 of 2011 registered at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata. |
| June 27, 2024 | Calcutta High Court dismisses the criminal revisions filed by the appellants. |
| February 27, 2025 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeals. |
Arguments
The primary argument raised by the appellants before the High Court was that the second FIR was registered based on a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without an accompanying affidavit. They contended that this violated the law established by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287, which mandates that all such complaints be supported by an affidavit.
The appellant argued that all judgments of the Supreme Court are retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. They emphasized that the Priyanka Srivastava judgment did not specify prospective application and, therefore, should apply to their case.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the ruling in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, mandating an affidavit for complaints filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, applies retrospectively.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the requirement of an affidavit for complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC, as mandated in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, applies retrospectively. | The requirement is prospective in nature. | The language used in Priyanka Srivastava indicates that the directions were intended to apply from the date of the judgment onward. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- ✓ Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287: This case established the requirement of an affidavit for complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC to prevent frivolous complaints.
- ✓ Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section allows a Magistrate to order an investigation into a cognizable offense.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 | The Court analyzed the language used in the judgment to determine whether the directions were intended to be prospective or retrospective. |
| Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | The Court examined the purpose and application of this section in the context of the affidavit requirement. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| The appellants argued that the second FIR was registered based on a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC without an accompanying affidavit, violating the law established in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287. | The Court held that the requirement of an affidavit is prospective in nature and does not apply to complaints lodged before the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava. |
| The appellant argued that all judgments of the Supreme Court are retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. | The Court clarified that while laws made by the legislature are prospective unless stated otherwise, the reverse is true for judgments of a Constitutional Court, which are retrospective unless the judgment specifies prospective application. However, in this case, the language of the Priyanka Srivastava judgment indicated a prospective intent. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287: The Court reiterated that the directions in this case were aimed at curbing frivolous complaints and were intended to operate prospectively.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the intent behind the Priyanka Srivastava judgment, which was to prevent the filing of frivolous complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court noted that the language used in the judgment indicated that the directions were to be implemented from that point forward, suggesting a prospective application. The Court also considered the potential for undue hardship and injustice if the affidavit requirement were applied retrospectively.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Intent to prevent frivolous complaints | 40% |
| Language used in the Priyanka Srivastava judgment | 35% |
| Potential for undue hardship and injustice | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (consideration of legal principles) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:
Issue: Does the affidavit requirement under Section 156(3) CrPC apply retrospectively?
↓
↓
↓
↓
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The requirement of filing an affidavit along with complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC, as mandated in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, applies prospectively from the date of the judgment.
- ✓ Complaints filed before the Priyanka Srivastava judgment do not need to be supported by an affidavit.
- ✓ The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of preventing frivolous complaints and ensuring that the directions in Priyanka Srivastava are implemented effectively.
Directions
The Supreme Court noted that if charges have not been framed in the cases against the appellants, they are at liberty to move an application for their discharge, which shall be considered in accordance with the law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the requirement of filing an affidavit along with complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC, as mandated in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, applies prospectively from the date of the judgment. This clarifies the application of the Priyanka Srivastava ruling and provides guidance for Magistrates and litigants.
Conclusion
In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the requirement of an affidavit for complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC is prospective in nature. This decision reinforces the principle that while Supreme Court judgments are generally retrospective, exceptions can be made when the language and intent of the judgment indicate a prospective application, particularly to prevent undue hardship and promote justice.