HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 344 of 2016 11th July, 2025 Rita Suri and Another -Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another -Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Reeta Suri and Mr. Raj Kumar Suri, applicants, present through video conferencing. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicants challenging the order dated 08.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No.112 of 2015. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC before the learned Magistrate, where respondent no.2 made allegation against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 167, 342, 166, 168, 219, 220 and 218 of IPC. 2 3. The allegation made by respondent no.2 in the aforesaid application was that the false FIR was registered against him by the present applicants in connivance with Anil Kumar Joshi, who was the Station House Officer, Kotwali Dalanwala, Dehradun. 4. On this application filed under Section 156 (3) of CrPC, a report was sought by the learned Magistrate from the concerned Police Station. The applicants refuted every allegation made in the application and subsequently the learned Magistrate on consideration of the fact that the application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 156 (3) of CrPC was not accompanied by an affidavit which is mandatory as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287, rejected the application of the respondent no.2 vide order dated 23.04.2015. Against the order dated 23.04.2015, the complainant/respondent no.2 preferred a revision before the revisional court where the revision of the complainant/respondent no.2 was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 08.12.2015. However, the grounds on which the revision was allowed are not sustainable. The revisional court while allowing the revision of the complainant/respondent no.2 came to the 3 conclusion that decision in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 will not be applicable in this case as the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is of 19.03.2015, which is a date prior to the filing of the present application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC by the complainant and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court will not be retrospective! 5. A law made by the Court always has a retrospective effect unless specifically stated in the ruling itself. Since it has not been stated that the ruling will have a prospective effect, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287 will have a retrospective effect and this was absolutely elementary and this Court fails to understand as to how the court below missed this simple concept. 6. Consequently, the court below has committed a very obvious mistake in not relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The criminal miscellaneous application is therefore allowed. The order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun is set aside. However, the complainant 4 would be at liberty to move a fresh application in accordance with law. (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.07.2025 Ujjwal