Supreme Court Doubts Precedent Which Limited High Court's Scope In Deciding Discharge Applications
The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the judgment in Minakshi Bala v Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142 which advocated for a restricted approach to be taken by High Courts in discharging accused from criminal cases.While setting aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which refused to discharge the accused in a criminal case, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and...
The Supreme Court has expressed reservations about the judgment in Minakshi Bala v Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142 which advocated for a restricted approach to be taken by High Courts in discharging accused from criminal cases.
While setting aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which refused to discharge the accused in a criminal case, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed its reservations regarding the findings of Minakshi Bala's case, especially paragraph 8 of the judgment. For connivence, the same para reads as follows:
“Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we further find that instead of adverting to and confining its attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC the High Court has dealt with the rival contentions of the parties raised through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof passed the impugned order. The course so adopted cannot be supported; firstly, because finding regarding commission of an offence cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence and secondly, because at the stage of framing of charge the Court cannot usurp the functions of a trial court to delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the case.”
This meant that once charges are framed, the High Court can only rely upon the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC and would not be it justified if any other documents are relied upon.
As per present judgment, if this view is accepted, the same would amount to tying the hands down while considering the discharge application.
“If Paragraph 8 of Minakshi Bala (supra) is accepted as it is, the necessary concomitant would be that despite examining the matter in detail, a Court would find its wings clipped to intercede. This would amount to forcing a person to stand trial, even when the overwhelming material points to his/her innocence.,” the Court observed.
Notwithstanding, the Court did not refer the matter to the higher bench for reconsideration observing that the same can be done in a more appropriate case.
The Court also observed in the judgment that the High Courts have the duty to quash vexatious criminal proceedigs.
Case Title:VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3618 OF 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1019