Summary
The appellants sought quashing of two FIRs, contending that the second, which arose from a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC filed in 2010-2011 without a supporting affidavit, violated the direction in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. The Court held that the affidavit requirement laid down in Priyanka Srivastava operates prospectively only, upheld the High Court and dismissed the appeals.
Issues
- Whether the direction in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. that applications under Section 156(3) CrPC be supported by an affidavit applies retrospectively to complaints filed before that judgment.
- Whether the second FIR, registered on a Section 156(3) CrPC complaint filed without an affidavit in 2010-2011, was liable to be quashed on that ground.
Provisions considered
- Section 156(3) read with Section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The second FIR was registered on a Magistrate's direction under Section 190 read with Section 156(3). The Court examined whether the requirement, laid down in Priyanka Srivastava, that such applications be supported by a sworn affidavit governs a complaint filed before that decision, and held that the requirement is prospective, so the complaint was not vitiated by the absence of an affidavit. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Held
- Legislation is prospective unless the statute itself provides for retrospective operation, whereas the law declared or interpreted by a constitutional court is retrospective unless the judgment itself states that it will operate prospectively. Prospective operation is adopted to avoid undue burden or hardship to those who acted bona fide on the law as it then stood and to avoid unsettling what has long been settled. (¶ 3)
- The direction in Priyanka Srivastava that Section 156(3) CrPC applications must be supported by an affidavit, issued to curb frivolous complaints, is prospective in nature. This follows from the language of paragraph 30 of that decision ('a stage has come in this country...'), which signifies that from then onwards an application would have to be accompanied by an affidavit, and from the direction that the judgment be circulated to Magistrates so that they remain vigilant in future. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- The High Court was right in holding that the affidavit requirement would not apply to the complaint lodged against the appellants in 2010-2011; the appeals therefore had no merit. Since chargesheets have been filed in both cases, the appellants are at liberty to apply for discharge if charges have not yet been framed, to be considered in accordance with law. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the High Court's order dated 27.06.2024 upheld. Appellants at liberty to seek discharge if charges have not been framed. Interim orders vacated; pending applications disposed of.