LexKANISHK SINHA & ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.