Supreme Court Holds Priyanka Srivastava Directions Operate Prospectively and Dismisses Quashing Appeals

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard appeals by a husband and wife challenging the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to quash two FIRs registered at Bhowanipur, Kolkata and contested the retrospective application of this Court’s decision in Priyanka Srivastava regarding Section 156(3) CrPC complaints.

The Court rejected the appellants’ plea that the Priyanka Srivastava directions required retrospective application and affirmed the High Court’s view that those directions would operate prospectively. The bench observed that while judgments of a constitutional court were generally retrospective, a court could specify prospective operation to avoid undue hardship. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The appeals were dismissed for lack of merit; interim orders, if any, were vacated and pending applications were disposed of.

Background

The appellants were accused in two separate criminal matters: FIR No.179 of 2010 (registered 27.04.2010) under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 IPC read with Section 66A of the IT Act (complainant Keyur Majumder); and FIR No.298 of 2011 (registered 08.06.2011) under Sections 466, 469, 471 read with 120B(ii) IPC (complainant Supriti Bandopadhyay). The allegations encompassed forgery, cheating, fraud, damage to reputation, misrepresentation, unlawful extraction of money and criminal conspiracy. The appellants filed six revisions in the Calcutta High Court, principally seeking quashing of the FIRs on the ground that they were motivated and that the second FIR had been registered on a complaint sent by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC that, the appellants contended, lacked the affidavit now mandated by Priyanka Srivastava (2015) 6 SCC 287.

The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the directions in Priyanka Srivastava — that Section 156(3) CrPC applications be supported by an affidavit and magistrates be more vigilant — could only operate prospectively. The High Court relied on the language of para 30 in Priyanka Srivastava where this Court had observed: “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.”

On appeal, the appellants argued that judicial decisions ordinarily operated retrospectively and there was no explicit declaration in Priyanka Srivastava that its dicta were to be prospective only. The Supreme Court, however, analysed the nature of prospective judicial pronouncements and accepted the High Court’s approach, noting that prospective application was appropriate where retrospective operation would create undue hardship or unsettle long-settled matters. The Court also noted that charge sheets had been filed in both matters; it clarified that where charges had not yet been framed the appellants remained free to move for discharge and such applications would be considered in accordance with law. Interim orders were vacated.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 278 Case Title: Kanishk Sinha & Another v. The State of West Bengal & Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Appellant No.1 Kanishk Sinha (argued in person); other counsel not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): State of West Bengal (state counsel names not indicated in the judgment)