In a landmark decision on November 28, the Supreme Court emphasized the pivotal role of High Courts in shielding individuals from baseless and unwarranted criminal prosecutions. The court, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, overturned a ruling by the Allahabad High Court that had refused to exonerate the accused in a criminal case.
The bench articulated, “The protection against vexatious and unwanted prosecution and from being unnecessarily dragged through a trial… is a duty cast on the High Courts.” The reference was made to the case of Priyanka Mishra v State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 INSC 729, underscoring the High Courts’ responsibility to safeguard individuals from frivolous legal actions.
Terming the impugned order as unreasoned, the Supreme Court, acting as a vigilant guardian, intervened in the matter. Consequently, the accused individuals were discharged, putting an end to a trial that had spanned over a decade.
“The High Court should have intervened and discharged the appellants. But this Court will intervene, being the sentinel on the qui vive,” the Court declared.
In the case at hand, the complainant, a tenant, accused the appellants, a husband and wife, of trespassing and theft in 2011. However, the charge sheet only implicated the appellants under Section 448 (Punishment for house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code.
Before reaching the Supreme Court, the appellants had sought discharge before the Trial Court, but their plea was rejected. Subsequently, their application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court met a similar fate, leading to the present appeal.
The appellants contended that the allegations were baseless and designed to prevent the husband, who owned the shop, from enjoying his property. They also highlighted a concurrent civil suit filed by the complainant based on a forged ‘Memorandum of Agreement of Tenancy.’
Analyzing the case, the Supreme Court noted that the complainant’s claim of tenancy relied on a prima facie forged document, leading to the initiation of a criminal case. Considering this, coupled with the absence of evidence supporting the charges under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, the Court found the case against the appellants to be on shaky ground.
Drawing strength from various legal precedents, the Court asserted that a mere suspicion is insufficient, emphasizing the need for a strong or grave suspicion for proceeding with a case. In this instance, the Court concluded, “We are satisfied that there is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the offense alleged.” Consequently, the appellants were discharged in the case of Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3618 of 2023.
