Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

28 November 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 3618 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1071 : 2023 INSC 1026

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the accused in a criminal case and quashing an FIR calls for interference.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 239-240 – Trial of warrantcases by Magistrates – Application for discharge – Permissible extent of scrutiny – On facts, refusal of the High Court to discharge the accusedappellant in a criminal case and quash an FIR – Interference with: Held: Case for interference made out – There is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the offence alleged, u/ss. 448, 454 and 380 IPC – Criminal case against the appellants amounts to clear abuse of the process of the Court – It would be unjustified to make the appellants face a full-fledged criminal trial – Appellants are to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through the rigours of an eventual trial, either through quashing a FIR/Complaint or by allowing an appeal against an order rejecting discharge or by any other legally permissible route, as the circumstances may be, in the deserving case, is a duty cast on the High Courts – High Court should have intervened and discharged the appellants – Thus, there not being sufficient material on record to proceed against the appellants, they are discharged – Impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order of the trial court dismissing the prayer for discharge are are unreasoned and set aside. [Para 14, 23, 24] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 239-240 – Trial of warrantcases by magistrates – Discharging of accused – Framing of charges – Reliance on Minakshi Bala’s case which held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court cannot usurp functions of a trial court to delve into and decide upon respective merits:

Held: If Minakshi Bala’s case is accepted as it, the necessary concomitant would be that despite examining the matter in detail, a court would find its freedom restricted while considering the discharge application – This would amount to forcing a person to stand trial, even when ‘overwhelming’ material points to his/her innocence – Obviously, hands of a Court ought not to be tied down, and not against liberty – Thus, Minakshi Bala’s case is doubted on the limited aspect, however, not referred to the larger bench for reconsideration observing that the same would be done in a more appropriate case – Precedent. [Para 18, 25]

LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Case U/S 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. No.4929 of 2017, by which the Order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow rejecting the prayer for discharge of the appellants, who are husband and wife, respectively, has been upheld. THE FACTUAL

View Subscription Plans →