DATE: 27/02/2025
BENCH: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
FACTS:
The appellants, a husband and wife, have challenged an order dated June 27, 2024, passed by the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, which dismissed their criminal revision petitions. The appellants are accused in two separate cases, both registered at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata. The first case, registered as FIR No. 179 of 2010 on April 27, 2010, was filed by complainant Keyur Majumder 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 (IT Act). The second case originated as a complaint before the Magistrate and was converted into FIR No. 298 of 2011 on June 8, 2011, under Sections 466, 469, 471 read with 120B(ii) of IPC, following a directive under Section 190 read with 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The complainant in this case was Supriti Bandopadhyay.
The allegations against the appellants in both cases include forgery, fraud, deception, cheating, reputational damage, unlawful monetary extraction, threats, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy. The appellants had filed six revisions before the Calcutta High Court, contesting the charge sheets and certain interim orders, but their primary argument was that both FIRs were false and motivated. Additionally, they contended that the second FIR, being a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of CrPC, was not accompanied by an affidavit, violating the Supreme Court's ruling in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015). The High Court, however, held that the Priyanka Srivastava judgment applies prospectively and does not affect complaints filed before its pronouncement. The appellants, particularly appellant no.1, argued that all Supreme Court rulings are retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is the direction made by the High Court in the impugned judgement stating that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit, will be prospective in nature.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision, ruling that the requirement for an affidavit to accompany complaints under Section 156(3) of CrPC, as established in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), applies prospectively and does not impact complaints filed before the judgment. The Court dismissed the appellants' plea, stating that their challenge to the second FIR on this ground had no merit. It also clarified that the appellants are free to seek discharge in the pending criminal proceedings if charges have not yet been framed.
The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that while legislative enactments are generally prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise, judicial pronouncements are retrospective unless specified as prospective. However, the Court recognized that the Priyanka Srivastava ruling was intended to prevent frivolous complaints and promote judicial diligence, which implied a forward-looking application rather than retroactive enforcement. The language used in Priyanka Srivastava, particularly the phrase “a stage has come in this country,” signified that the affidavit requirement was to be followed from the date of judgment onwards.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that prospective application of such judicial directions prevents undue hardship to individuals who acted based on the legal framework existing before the ruling. Retrospective enforcement could disrupt settled cases and create unfair legal consequences. Therefore, the High Court's decision was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the nuanced approach courts take when determining the prospective or retrospective application of judicial rulings. By affirming that the requirement of an affidavit under Priyanka Srivastava applies only to complaints filed after the judgment, the Court maintained the principle that judicial pronouncements are generally retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. However, the Court also recognized that some rulings, particularly those introducing procedural safeguards, must be applied prospectively to prevent undue hardship. The ruling serves as an important precedent for procedural reforms in criminal law, balancing the need to curb frivolous litigation while ensuring that past legal actions taken in good faith are not unfairly invalidated.
Additionally, the Court’s reasoning underscores the significance of legal certainty and fairness in judicial interpretation. By clarifying that Priyanka Srivastava was intended as a forward-looking measure, the Court ensured that individuals who filed complaints under the previous legal framework would not face adverse consequences due to a later judicial pronouncement. This decision also reinforces the importance of contextual interpretation of judgments, as seen in the Court’s analysis of the phrase “a stage has come in this country,” which indicated a shift in judicial policy rather than an immediate rewriting of past cases. Ultimately, the ruling strikes a balance between enforcing procedural rigor in criminal complaints and maintaining stability in previously settled legal matters.
info@adhwaitha.com
