Supreme Court Dismissed Appeals Seeking Quashing of FIRs Based on Procedural Lapse – Affirmed Prospective Application of Affidavit Requirement in Section 156(3) CrPC Complaints

Case Note & Summary

a) Judicial decisions are presumed retrospective unless stated otherwise; however, procedural safeguards can be prospective to avoid undue hardship (Para 3, 4). b) The direction in Priyanka Srivastava clearly implied prospective application to prevent misuse of the legal process (Para 5).

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the affidavit requirement is prospective and dismissed the appeals.

Appeals dismissed with liberty granted to appellants to seek discharge if charges are not framed yet (Para 6, 7).

Relevant Acts and Sections:

Constitution of India (‘COI’) – Article 226

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) – Section 156(3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) – Sections 120B, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471

Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) – Section 66A(a)(b)(c)

Subjects: Criminal Conspiracy – Forgery – Fraud – Deception – Cheating – Reputation Damage – Unlawful Money Extraction – Misrepresentation – Procedural Compliance – Retrospective and Prospective Operation

Nature of Litigation: Criminal Appeals seeking quashing of two FIRs alleging forgery, fraud, and criminal conspiracy.

Remedy Sought: The appellants prayed for quashing the FIRs on grounds of procedural non-compliance and mala fide intent.

Reason for Filing: Allegations of false and motivated complaints without proper procedural adherence, particularly the absence of a sworn affidavit with the Section 156(3) CrPC application.

Prior Decisions: The Calcutta High Court dismissed the criminal revisions, ruling the affidavit requirement under Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 is prospective.

Issues:

a) Whether the absence of a sworn affidavit with the application under Section 156(3) CrPC rendered the FIR invalid? b) Whether the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava applies retrospectively or prospectively?

Submissions/Arguments:

a) Appellants argued all Supreme Court judgments are retrospective unless expressly stated otherwise. b) Respondents contended the requirement of an affidavit is a procedural safeguard with prospective effect.

Issue of Consideration