Case Summary: Kanishk Sinha & Another v. State of West Bengal & Another (2025) | Prospective and Retrospective Application of Judicial Rulings

The case of Kanishk Sinha & Another v. State of West Bengal & Another revolves around allegations of forgery, fraud, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy. The appellants, husband and wife, challenged the validity of two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against them. The crux of their argument was that the second FIR was invalid as it was registered following a Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, but was not accompanied by an affidavit, which the appellants contended was a mandatory requirement as per the Supreme Court ruling in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, examined the prospective or retrospective application of the procedural requirement laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) and held that the High Court was correct in ruling that this procedural safeguard was only applicable prospectively. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.: 8609-8614 of 2024

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Date of Judgment: February 27, 2025

Facts of the Case

The appellants, Kanishk Sinha and his wife, were accused in two separate FIRs filed at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata, alleging offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000.

1. First FIR (No. 179 of 2010, dated 27.04.2010)

• Filed at Bhowanipur Police Station, Kolkata.
• Charges: Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 469 (forgery for harming reputation), 471 (using forged document as genuine) of IPC.
• Additionally, charged under Section 66A(a)(b)(c) of the IT Act, 2000 (which was later struck down as unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1).
• Complaint filed by Keyur Majumder, alleging fraud, deception, and damage to reputation.

2. Second FIR (No. 298 of 2011, dated 08.06.2011)

• Originally filed as a private complaint before the Magistrate.
• The Magistrate, exercising powers under Section 190 read with Section 156(3) of CrPC, directed the police to register an FIR.
• Charges: Sections 466 (forgery of record of court or public register), 469, 471 read with 120B(ii) IPC.
• Complaint filed by Supriti Bandopadhyay, alleging criminal conspiracy, fraud, and forgery.

Issues Raised

The key issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the second FIR, which was filed based on a Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) CrPC, was invalid for not being accompanied by an affidavit, as required by the ruling in Priyanka Srivastava (supra).
2. Whether the Priyanka Srivastava ruling applied retrospectively or only prospectively.

Observations by the Supreme Court

Prospective v. Retrospective Application of Judicial Rulings

The Court reaffirmed the general principle that:

• Legislative enactments are prospective in nature unless explicitly made retrospective.
• Judicial rulings are retrospective unless explicitly stated to be prospective.
• However, procedural safeguards introduced through judicial rulings can be applied prospectively to prevent undue hardship.

Analysis of Priyanka Srivastava's Judgment

• The Court examined Priyanka Srivastava (supra) and observed that:
• The ruling aimed to curb frivolous complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC that were filed to harass individuals.
• It introduced an additional procedural requirement by mandating that such applications be accompanied by a duly sworn affidavit.
• The language of the judgment suggested a prospective application, as indicated by the phrase:

“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.”

• Additionally, the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava had directed all High Court Chief Justices to circulate the judgment to Magistrates to ensure compliance moving forward.

Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court held:

• The requirement of an affidavit for Section 156(3) CrPC applications is prospective and does not apply to complaints filed before the Priyanka Srivastava judgment (2015).
• The Calcutta High Court was correct in rejecting the appellants' argument that the second FIR was invalid.
• The appeals were dismissed.
• However, the Court clarified that since charge sheets had already been filed in both cases, the appellants were at liberty to apply for discharge before the trial court, which would consider their plea in accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways

Affidavit Requirement Under Section 156(3) CrPC: The requirement introduced by Priyanka Srivastava (2015) applies only to complaints filed after the ruling and not retroactively.

Retrospective Application of Judicial Rulings: While judicial decisions are generally retrospective, procedural safeguards may be applied prospectively to prevent hardship.

Relief for Accused: Though the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the FIRs, it allowed the appellants to seek discharge at the stage of framing charges.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

The judgment upholds the validity of the second FIR, affirming that complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC need an affidavit only if filed post-2015. It also reiterates that procedural changes should not unsettle settled legal positions retrospectively unless necessary.

This case serves as an important precedent for determining the prospective and retrospective application of procedural requirements introduced through judicial interpretations, particularly in criminal law proceedings.