Case Note & Summary
The appellants, husband and wife, were accused in two separate criminal cases registered at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata. The first FIR (No.179/2010) was lodged under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC read with Section 66A IT Act, based on a complaint by Keyur Majumder. The second FIR (No.298/2011) was registered under Sections 466, 469, 471 read with 120B(ii) IPC, following a complaint by Supriti Bandopadhyay which was referred by a Magistrate under Section 190 read with 156(3) CrPC. The allegations in both cases involved forgery, fraud, cheating, criminal conspiracy, and related offences. The appellants filed six criminal revisions before the Calcutta High Court challenging the filing of charge sheets and interim orders. The sole ground raised was that the second FIR was invalid because the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC was not accompanied by an affidavit, as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287. The High Court dismissed the revisions, holding that the Priyanka Srivastava direction operated prospectively and did not apply to complaints filed in 2010-2011. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that judgments of constitutional courts are retrospective unless stated otherwise. The Supreme Court examined the language of Priyanka Srivastava, particularly the phrase 'a stage has come in this country', and concluded that the direction was intended to apply from the date of judgment onwards. The Court noted that prospective operation is appropriate to avoid undue hardship and to prevent unsettling matters that were done in accordance with the law as it then stood. The Court upheld the High Court's view, finding no merit in the appeals, and dismissed them. However, the Court granted liberty to the appellants to apply for discharge if charges had not yet been framed, to be considered in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Prospective Operation of Judicial Directions - Section 156(3) CrPC - Affidavit Requirement - The Supreme Court held that the direction in Priyanka Srivastava requiring affidavits for Section 156(3) applications operates prospectively, as the language 'a stage has come in this country' indicates future application, and retrospective operation would cause undue hardship. (Paras 3-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Retrospective vs. Prospective Operation of Judgments - General Principle - While judgments of constitutional courts are generally retrospective unless stated otherwise, the Court may direct prospective operation to avoid unsettling settled matters or causing injustice. (Para 3) C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Motivated and False Allegations - The appellants' contention that FIRs were motivated and false was not considered on merits as the only issue raised before the High Court was the affidavit requirement. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the direction in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC must be supported by an affidavit applies retrospectively to complaints filed before that judgment.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed. The High Court's order upheld. The direction in Priyanka Srivastava requiring affidavit for Section 156(3) CrPC applications operates prospectively. Appellants granted liberty to apply for discharge if charges not yet framed.
Law Points
- Prospective operation of judicial directions
- Retrospective nature of declaratory judgments
- Requirement of affidavit under Section 156(3) CrPC
- Priyanka Srivastava ratio
