Judgments – Operation of – Plea of the appellants that the second FIR was registered on the complaint which was filed before the Magistrate u/s.156(3), CrPC, however, it was not accompanied by an affidavit and therefore, the direction issued by this Court in Priyanka Srivastava (2015) that all such complaints should now be accompanied by an affidavit was violated – High Court dismissing the criminal revisions filed by the appellants held that the direction in Priyanka Srivastava will only operate prospectively and thus, was not applicable to the complaint lodged against the appellants in the year 2010-2011 – Challenge to:
Held: High Court was right in holding that the direction in Priyanka Srivastava that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit, will be prospective in nature – In Priyanka Srivastava, this Court was seized with an issue where frivolous complaints were being filed before the Magistrate only to harass people and therefore, in order to check this trend, it was directed that all applications before the Court where s.156(3) CrPC applications are made must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate – Such a step could only be prospective in nature, and this is clearly reflected from the very language used therein signifying that what the Court intended was that from now onward it would be necessary that an application would be accompanied by an affidavit – No merit in the present appeals. [Paras 4-6]
Judgments – Operation of – Always retrospective unless made prospective:
Held: 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 – It is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many. [Para 3]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.