LexVISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1071 : 2023 INSC 1026 1071 CASE DETAILS VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. NOVEMBER 28, 2023 (Criminal Appeal No. 3618 of 2023) [VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.] HEADNOTES 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. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 β ss. 239-240 β Trial of warrant- cases by Magistrates β Application for discharge β Permissible extent of scrutiny β On facts, refusal of the High Court to discharge the accused- appellant in a criminal case and quash an FIR β Interference with: Held: Case for interference made out β There is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the oο¬ ence alleged, u/ss. 448, 454 and 380 IPC β Criminal case against the appellants amounts to clear abuse of the process of the Court β It would be unjustiο¬ ed to make the appellants face a full-ο¬ edged criminal trial β 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 β High Court should have intervened and discharged the appellants β Thus, there not being suο¬ cient material on record to proceed against the appellants, they are discharged β 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] 1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S.C.R. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 β ss. 239-240 β Trial of warrant- cases by magistrates β Discharging of accused β Framing of charges β Reliance on Minakshi Balaβs 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 Balaβs case is accepted as it, the necessary concomitant would be that despite examining the matter in detail, a court would ο¬ nd its freedom restricted while considering the discharge application β This would amount to forcing a person to stand trial, even when βoverwhelmingβ material points to his/her innocence β Obviously, hands of a Court ought not to be tied down, and not against liberty β Thus, Minakshi Balaβs 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 β Precedent. [Para 18, 25] LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Minakshi Bala v Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142: [1994] 3 SCR 1008 β Doubted on limited aspect. Ajoy Kumar Ghose v State of Jharkhand, (2009) 14 SCC 115: [2009] 4 SCR 515; Rumi Dhar v State of West Bengal, (2009) 6 SCC 364: [2009] 5 SCR 553; State of Tamil Nadu v N Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709: [2014] 1 SCR 135; State of Bihar v Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39: [1978] 1 SCR 257; Union of India v Prafulla K Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4: [1979] 2 SCR 229; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v Dilip N Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715: [1989] 1 SCR 560; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v Jitendra B Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76: [1990] 3 SCR 633; Dilawar B Kurane v State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135: [2002] 1 SCR 75; Chitresh K Chopra v State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605: [2009] 13 SCR 230; Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460: [2012] 7 SCR 988; Dinesh Tiwari v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 137: [2014] 8 SCR 207; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547: [2019] 6 SCR 701; State (NCT of Delhi) v Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290: [2019] 17 SCR 1155; K P Raghavan v M H Abbas, AIR 1967 SC 740: 1967 AIR 740; Almohan Das v State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 520: [1969] 2 SCR 520; Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of 1073 Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368: [2010] 9 SCC 368; State of Gujarat v Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 INSC 894 β referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.3618 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CN No.4929
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.