Kanishk Sinha v. The State of West Bengal
Background
A husband and wife were accused in two separate FIRs registered in 2010 and 2011 at Kolkata alleging forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. The second FIR had originated from a private complaint before a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. The appellants argued before the Calcutta High Court, and then the Supreme Court, that this second FIR was invalid because the underlying complaint was not accompanied by a sworn affidavit, a requirement later laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015).
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the affidavit requirement from Priyanka Srivastava was intended to operate only prospectively. It was meant to guide Magistrates "from now onward" rather than invalidate complaints filed years earlier, in 2010-2011, before that judgment was delivered. As a general rule, judicial pronouncements interpreting the law apply retrospectively unless the judgment itself states otherwise, and here the language of Priyanka Srivastava indicated it was meant to apply going forward. Finding the High Court's view correct, the Court dismissed the appeals, while leaving the appellants free to seek discharge before the trial court if charges had not yet been framed.
Lesson Learnt
A new procedural safeguard laid down by the Supreme Court does not automatically undo actions taken under the old procedure before that ruling. Courts must look at whether the judgment itself signals prospective-only application.