KANISHK SINHA & ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1405 : 2025 INSC 278

                      Kanishk Sinha & Another
                                 v.
                 The State of West Bengal & Another
                 (Criminal Appeal No(s). 966-971 of 2025)
                               27 February 2025
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the direction
       issued in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015] 4
       SCR 108 that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit is
       prospective in nature not having any retrospective application and
       thus, will not be applicable to the complaint lodged against the
       appellants in the year 2010-2011.

                                   Headnotes†
       Judgments – Operation of – Plea of the appellants that the
       second FIR was registered on the complaint which was filed
       before the Magistrate u/s.156(3), CrPC, however, it was not
       accompanied by an affidavit and therefore, the direction
       issued by this Court in Priyanka Srivastava (2015) that all
       such complaints should now be accompanied by an affidavit
       was violated – High Court dismissing the criminal revisions
       filed by the appellants held that the direction in Priyanka
       Srivastava will only operate prospectively and thus, was not
       applicable to the complaint lodged against the appellants in
       the year 2010-2011 – Challenge to:
       Held: High Court was right in holding that the direction in Priyanka
       Srivastava that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit,
       will be prospective in nature – In Priyanka Srivastava, this Court
       was seized with an issue where frivolous complaints were being
       filed before the Magistrate only to harass people and therefore, in
       order to check this trend, it was directed that all applications before
       the Court where s.156(3) CrPC applications are made must be
       supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks to
       invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate – Such a step could only
       be prospective in nature, and this is clearly reflected from the very
       language used therein signifying that what the Court intended was
* Author
1406                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    that from now onward it would be necessary that an application
    would be accompanied by an affidavit – No merit in the present
    appeals. [Paras 4-6]

    Judgments – Operation of – Always retrospective unless
    made prospective:
    Held: The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective
    in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the
    judgment will operate prospectively – The prospective operation of
    a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to
    persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bona fidely
    done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at
    the relevant point of time – It is done not to unsettle something
    which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to
    many. [Para 3]

                             Case Law Cited
    Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015] 4 SCR 108 :
    (2015) 6 SCC 287 – clarified.

                               List of Acts
    Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                            List of Keywords
    Operation of a Judgment; Retrospective; Prospective; Complaint
    filed before the Magistrate; Not accompanied by an affidavit.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
    966-971 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2024 of the High Court
    at Calcutta in CRR Nos. 608, 641, 794 and 795 of 2015 and CRR
    Nos. 3610 of 2011 and CRR No. 483 of 2013

                        Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Respondents:
    Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Ms. Debarati Sadhu, Anant.
    Petitioner-in-person.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        1407

     Kanishk Sinha & Another v. The State of West Bengal & Another


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

      Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    The appellants before this Court are husband and wife (appellant
      no.1 & 2, respectively), who are aggrieved by an order dated
      27.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High
      Court by which the criminal revisions of the present appellants were
      dismissed. The appellants are accused in two different cases, the
      first registered as a First Information Report (‘FIR’) at police station
      Bhowanipur, Kolkata as FIR No.179 of 2010 dated 27.04.2010 under
      Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
      1860 (‘IPC’), read with Section 66A (a)(b)(c) of the Information
      Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’). In the instant case, the complainant
      was Keyur Majumder. The second FIR which was initially moved
      as a complaint before the Ld. Magistrate, and the Ld. Magistrate
      in exercise of powers under Section 190 read with 156(3) of the
      Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) directed registration of an
      FIR. The complainant in this case was Supriti Bandopadhyay, and the
      second FIR was registered as FIR No.298 of 2011 dated 08.06.2011
      at police station Bhowanipur, Kolkata under Sections 466, 469, 471
      read with 120B(ii) of IPC.
3.    The nature of allegations in these two cases is similar against
      the appellants, relating to forgery, fraud, deception, cheating,
      damage caused to reputation, unlawful extraction of money, threat,
      misrepresentation and criminal conspiracy etc. In fact, six revisions
      were filed by the appellants before the Calcutta High Court regarding
      the filing of charge sheet, as well as against certain interim orders
      passed by the Lower Court. But that is not very relevant. What is
      relevant is the only point which has been raised by the appellants
      in their revisions before the High Court, which was that not only are
      these FIRs motivated and false, and thus liable to be quashed, but
      also that the second FIR has been registered on the complaint which
      was filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, and
      it was not accompanied by an affidavit and therefore, the law as
1408                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     laid down by this Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar
     Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 has been violated as all such complaints
     should now be accompanied by an affidavit according to Priyanka
     Srivastava (supra). The learned Single Judge of the High Court
     was of the view that the directions of this Court in the above case
     could only operate prospectively and will not have any retrospective
     application, and will thus not be applicable to the complaint lodged
     against the appellants in the year 2010-2011.
     The appellant no.1, all the same, who argued in person before the
     High Court, emphasised before this Court and would argue that all
     the judgments of this Court are retrospective in nature and therefore
     it cannot be said that this would not be retrospective particularly
     when it has not been specifically stated in the judgment of Priyanka
     Srivastava (supra) that it will operate prospectively.
     Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely
     clear. Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective
     in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself
     about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which
     is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by
     the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in
     nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment
     will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment
     is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to
     avoid undue hardships to those who had bona fidely done something
     with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point
     of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long
     been settled, as that would cause injustice to many.
4.   In Priyanka Srivastava (supra) this Court was seized with an issue
     where frivolous complaints were being filed before the Magistrate only
     to harass people and therefore, in order to check this trend, it was
     directed that all applications before the Court where Section 156(3)
     CrPC applications are made must be supported by an affidavit duly
     sworn by the applicant who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the
     Magistrate. Such a step could only be prospective in nature, and
     this is clearly reflected from the very language used by the Learned
     Judges in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), where it has been said as
     under:
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1409

     Kanishk Sinha & Another v. The State of West Bengal & Another


           “30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this
           country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be
           supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who
           seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
           That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate
           would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify
           the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the
           applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so
           as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine
           manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only
           to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more
           disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people
           who are passing orders under a statutory provision which
           can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or
           under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot
           be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if
           somebody is determined to settle the scores.”
                                                  (Emphasis provided)

5.    This Court in the above case then also issued directions that a copy
      of the judgment be sent to all the Chief Justices of the High Courts,
      who in turn will circulate the said copy to all the Magistrates, so that
      they remain “more vigilant and diligent while exercising the power
      under Section 156(3) CrPC”.
      It is necessary to mark the words in the above-quoted para 30 that
      “…a stage has come in this country…”, and thus, the above directions
      could only be prospective. This would signify that what the Court
      intended was that from now onward it would be necessary that an
      application would be accompanied by an affidavit.
6.    We are of the opinion that the High Court was right in holding that
      the direction that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit,
      will be prospective in nature. We thus find no merit in these appeals
      and hence, the appeals stand dismissed.
7.    We have been informed that the charge sheet has been filed in both
      the cases. In case charges have not been framed by the Court, then
      the appellants would be at liberty to move an application for their
      discharge, which shall be considered in accordance with law.
1410                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


8.   Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.
9.   Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.


     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey