2025 (2) TMI 1241 - SC - Indian Laws

Affidavit requirement for complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC applied prospectively to curb frivolous harassment-driven filings

The SC upheld the High Court's ruling that directions requiring complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC to be supported by a sworn affidavit are prospective ... Forgery, fraud, deception, cheating, damage caused to reputation, unlawful extraction of money, threat, misrepresentation and criminal conspiracy - Retrospective or prospective operation of a judgment - complaints filed under Section 156(3) CrPC that are not accompanied by an affidavit - HELD THAT:- In Priyanka Srivastava [2015 (5) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT] 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 Section 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 by the Learned Judges in Priyanka Srivastava, where it has been said that 'This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.' Thus, the High Court was right in holding that the direction that a complaint will be accompanied by an affidavit, will be prospective in nature. There are no merit in these appeals and hence, the appeals stand dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether complaints filed under Section 156(3) CrPC that are not accompanied by an affidavit (as directed in the judgment laying down that requirement) must be treated as invalidly entertained where the complaints pre-date that judgment, i.e., whether that directive operates retrospectively or prospectively. 2. Whether the directions in the prior authoritative judgment requiring affidavits for Section 156(3) CrPC applications should be applied to complaints lodged in 2010-2011. 3. Ancillary: Whether dismissal of criminal revision petitions challenging such FIRs was sustainable where the High Court applied the earlier decision prospectively. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Temporal operation of judicial directions requiring affidavits for Section 156(3) CrPC complaints Legal framework: Judicial decisions of a Constitutional Court ordinarily operate retrospectively unless the Court expressly and/or by necessary implication directs prospective operation to prevent injustice, avoid undue hardship, or to prevent unsettling long-settled transactions. Statutory enactments are ordinarily prospective absent express retrospective words. Precedent Treatment: The Court considered an earlier decision that mandated affidavits to support Section 156(3) CrPC applications to curb frivolous and mala fide complaints. That prior judgment contained language indicating a change in approach ('a stage has come...') and issued administrative directions for future vigilance, evidencing an intent for future application. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the textual language and purpose of the prior decision and concluded the affidavit requirement and related directives were designed to check a present and continuing abuse and to change future practice. The language pointing to a present stage and the administrative directions to circulate the judgment supported a prospective application. The Court also reiterated the general principle that retrospective operation of judicial pronouncements may be limited where prospective application is necessary to avoid hardship or unsettle settled matters. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the directive that Section 156(3) CrPC applications must be supported by affidavits was held to be prospective in effect. Obiter - general observations about the retrospective nature of judicial decisions versus legislative enactments and policy reasons for prospective operation, insofar as they explain the holding, operate as guiding dicta but are ancillary to the conclusion reached. Conclusions: The affidavit requirement for Section 156(3) CrPC applications imposed by the prior judgment does not invalidate complaints registered before that judgment; it is to be applied prospectively. Complaints filed in 2010-2011 without affidavits are not thereby automatically vitiated by the later directive. Issue 2 - Application of the prior directive to the instant FIRs and propriety of High Court's stance Legal framework: Judicial power to regulate procedure and to issue directions to curb misuse of process, balanced against the need to avoid retrospective disruption and unfairness to parties who acted under the law as it stood at the relevant time. Precedent Treatment: The prior decision's administrative instructions (distribution to High Courts and Magistrates) and the expressed rationale were treated as markers of a forward-looking remedy rather than an ex post facto invalidation of past proceedings. Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the principles above, the Court found the High Court correctly held that the earlier judgment's affidavit mandate could not be applied retrospectively to complaints filed before that decision. The Court emphasized purposive reading: the direction was primarily prophylactic to prevent future harassment via frivolous Section 156(3) filings. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the High Court's dismissal of the revision petitions on the ground that the affidavit requirement is prospective was upheld. Obiter - commentary on bona fide reliance and the broader policy reasons for prospective operation serve as explanatory dicta. Conclusions: The High Court's approach was correct; the petitioners' challenge based solely on absence of an affidavit in pre-existing complaints failed because the affidavit requirement was prospective. Issue 3 - Remedies and further procedural consequences following the prospective application Legal framework: Normal criminal procedural remedies (e.g., applications for discharge) remain available and must be considered in accordance with law; interim orders and pending applications governed by standard principles. Precedent Treatment: The Court noted procedural posture: charges had been filed; where charges are not yet framed, accused retain the statutory remedy of seeking discharge under applicable CrPC provisions and jurisprudence governing discharge. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court clarified that dismissal of the revisions does not foreclose other legally available avenues; if charges are unframed, the accused can apply for discharge which the trial court will consider on merits under law. Interim orders were vacated and pending applications disposed of as routine procedural directions consistent with dismissal of the appeals. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - preservation of ordinary procedural remedies post-dismissal is operative. Obiter - procedural administrative directions (vacation of interim orders, disposal of pending applications) are incidental to the judgment. Conclusions: The accused may pursue discharge applications or other appropriate remedies; the appellate dismissal does not preclude the exercise of such procedural rights.