Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent decision dated February 27, 2025, in the case of Kanishk Sinha & Another v. The State of West Bengal & Another, addressed a crucial aspect of criminal procedure concerning the retrospective application of judicial pronouncements, particularly in the context of complaints filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). This judgment provides valuable clarification on the temporal operation of a court’s interpretation of law, distinguishing it from legislative enactments.
1. Factual Background and Procedural History
The appellants, Kanishk Sinha and his wife, were accused in two distinct criminal cases. The first case stemmed from an FIR (No. 179 of 2010) registered on April 27, 2010, at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 66A (a)(b)(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), with Keyur Majumder as the complainant. The second case originated from a complaint filed before a Magistrate, who, exercising powers under Section 190 read with 156(3) of the CrPC, directed the registration of an FIR (No. 298 of 2011) on June 8, 2011, at the same police station. The complainant in the second case was Supriti Bandopadhyay.
The allegations in both cases were similar, involving forgery, fraud, deception, cheating, damage to reputation, unlawful extraction of money, threat, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy. The appellants had filed six criminal revisions before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the filing of charge sheets and certain interim orders. The primary contention raised by the appellants in their revisions, and subsequently before the Supreme Court, was that the FIRs were motivated and false, and particularly, the second FIR was liable to be quashed because the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC was not accompanied by an affidavit. This argument was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287, which mandated that all such complaints must be accompanied by an affidavit. The Calcutta High Court, however, dismissed their revisions, holding that the directions in Priyanka Srivastava would operate prospectively and thus would not apply to complaints lodged in 2010-2011. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
2. Identification of Legal Issues
The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the requirement for a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC to be supported by an affidavit, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, applies retrospectively or prospectively.
3. Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments:
The appellant no. 1, arguing in person, contended that all judgments of the Supreme Court are retrospective in nature unless specifically stated otherwise within the judgment itself. Therefore, it was argued that the Priyanka Srivastava judgment, which did not explicitly state prospective operation, should be applied retrospectively, thereby invalidating the second FIR against them due to the absence of an accompanying affidavit.
Respondents’ Arguments (Implicit from the High Court’s decision and the Supreme Court’s reasoning):
While the judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of the respondents, it can be inferred from the High Court’s decision and the Supreme Court’s reasoning that the State of West Bengal and the complainants would have argued for the prospective application of the Priyanka Srivastava ruling. Their position would have aligned with the High Court’s view that the directions were intended to operate from the date of the judgment onward, aiming to curb future frivolous complaints, and therefore, should not affect complaints filed prior to the pronouncement.
4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by clarifying the general principles governing the prospective and retrospective operation of laws and judicial pronouncements. The Court stated that a law made by the legislature is always prospective unless the statute specifically provides for retrospective operation. Conversely, a law laid down or interpreted by a Constitutional Court is inherently retrospective unless the judgment itself explicitly states that it will operate prospectively. The Court further elaborated that prospective operation of a judgment is typically chosen to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens, undue hardships, or to prevent unsettling matters that have long been settled, which could lead to injustice.
The Court then turned its attention to the Priyanka Srivastava judgment. It noted that the Priyanka Srivastava case addressed the issue of frivolous complaints being filed before Magistrates under Section 156(3) CrPC, primarily to harass individuals. To counter this trend, the Priyanka Srivastava judgment directed that all applications seeking the invocation of a Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC must be supported by a duly sworn affidavit from the applicant.
The Supreme Court, in the present case, emphasized that the very language used in paragraph 30 of the Priyanka Srivastava judgment, specifically the phrase “…a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit…”, clearly indicates a prospective intent. The Court reasoned that this phrasing signified that “from now onward” such applications would require an affidavit. The Court also highlighted that Priyanka Srivastava had directed copies of the judgment to be circulated to all Chief Justices of High Courts for further dissemination to Magistrates, urging them to be “more vigilant and diligent” while exercising powers under Section 156(3) CrPC. This further underscored the prospective nature of the directions, aiming to implement a new procedural safeguard for future complaints.
The Court concluded that the High Court was correct in its determination that the direction regarding the accompanying affidavit would operate prospectively. Consequently, the absence of an affidavit in the complaint filed in 2011, which predated the Priyanka Srivastava judgment, did not invalidate the subsequent FIR.
5. Final Conclusion and Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the Calcutta High Court. The Court held that the direction in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, requiring an affidavit to accompany complaints filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, is prospective in nature. This means the requirement applies to complaints filed after the Priyanka Srivastava judgment was pronounced, and not retrospectively to complaints filed before it. The Court noted that charge sheets had been filed in both cases against the appellants and granted them liberty to move an application for discharge if charges had not yet been framed, to be considered in accordance with law.
FAQs:
1. What is the difference between a prospective and retrospective law?
A prospective law applies to events and actions occurring after its enactment, while a retrospective law applies to past events, as if it had been in effect earlier.
2. Do court judgments typically apply to past cases?
Generally, judgments from higher courts are considered retrospective, meaning they apply to past cases unless the court explicitly states that its decision will only operate prospectively to avoid undue hardship or to prevent unsettling established matters.
3. What is a Section 156(3) CrPC application in India?
A Section 156(3) CrPC application is a legal mechanism in India where a complainant can approach a Magistrate to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) and investigate an offense.
4. Why is an affidavit now required for some criminal complaints?
An affidavit is required for certain criminal complaints (specifically those under Section 156(3) CrPC) to ensure accountability of the applicant and to deter the filing of frivolous or harassing complaints, making the process more responsible.
5. How does a court decide if a ruling will be prospective?
A court decides on prospective application when it aims to introduce a new procedural safeguard or change in practice that would cause significant disruption or injustice if applied to past actions, often indicated by the language of the judgment itself, suggesting a change “from now onward.”
Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.
Disclaimer
The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.