In a landmark ruling on November 28, the Supreme Court emphasized the pivotal role of High Courts in safeguarding individuals from vexatious and undeserved criminal prosecutions. The decision overturned a judgment by the Allahabad High Court that had denied the discharge of accused individuals in a criminal case.
Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, comprising the bench, stressed that High Courts bear the responsibility of shielding individuals from unnecessary trials by quashing FIRs/complaints or allowing appeals against rejection of discharge orders. The court referred to the precedent set in the case of Priyanka Mishra v State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 INSC 729, underlining the duty of High Courts to protect against baseless prosecutions.
In this specific case, the complainant, a tenant, accused the appellants (husband and wife) of trespassing, breaking into the shop, and committing theft in 2011. However, discrepancies arose as the charge sheet only implicated the accused under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial ensued based on this provision.
Before approaching the Supreme Court, the appellants unsuccessfully sought discharge before the Trial Court and the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court, acting as the vigilant guardian, intervened, expressing dissatisfaction with the unreasoned judgment and ultimately discharging the appellants after a decade-long trial.
The appellants argued that the allegations were frivolous and intended to hinder the husband, who owned the shop, from enjoying his property. They also highlighted a concurrent civil suit filed by the complainant, which was based on a forged tenancy agreement predating the legal introduction of the Indian National Rupee symbol.
The Supreme Court, noting the forged document and the lack of any offenses under Sections 454 and 380, IPC, deemed the case against the appellants under Section 448 as precarious. Citing legal precedents, including Rumi Dhar v State of West Bengal and Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court emphasized the need for strong suspicion based on material evidence to sustain criminal charges.
In its decisive verdict, the Court stated, “…we are satisfied that there is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the offence alleged.” This pivotal judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to scrutinizing prosecutions and intervening when necessary to ensure justice prevails.
