Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Retrospective Application of Affidavit Requirement in Criminal Complaints.


27 February 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Forgery >> Criminal Law   |   Information Technology Act >> Intellectual Property Rights  

In Kanishk Sinha & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. the appellants, a husband and wife, challenged the dismissal of their criminal revisions by the Calcutta High Court. The case involves two FIRs accusing the appellants of various crimes, including forgery, fraud, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. One of the key arguments made by the appellants was that the second FIR, filed under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, was not accompanied by an affidavit, as required by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015). However, the High Court held that the directions in the Priyanka Srivastava case would apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

 

 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that judgments of constitutional courts typically have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Court also clarified that the affidavit requirement for Section 156(3) CrPC applications was intended to curb frivolous complaints and would apply only from the time of the Priyanka Srivastava judgment onward. As such, the appeals were dismissed, but the appellants were allowed to apply for discharge if charges had not yet been framed.


Section 156., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973

Section 190., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 66, Information Technology Act - 2000  

Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 467., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 468., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 469., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 471., Indian Penal Code - 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860