Supreme Court Questions Legal Shackles: A Bold Reassessment of High Court Powers in Discharge Applications

In a recent judicial turnabout, the Supreme Court has cast doubt on the long-standing precedent set by the Minakshi Bala v Sudhir Kumar case (1994) 4 SCC 142. This landmark decision had hitherto constrained the latitude of High Courts in adjudicating discharge applications in criminal cases.

A bench led by Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while overturning a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that denied the discharge of an accused in a criminal case, expressed reservations about the pivotal findings of Minakshi Bala’s case, specifically spotlighting paragraph 8 of the judgment. For clarity, the pertinent portion of the paragraph reads as follows:

“In addition to the shortcomings in the approach of the High Court, as we have already noted, we also find that instead of focusing on and limiting its attention to the documents referenced in Sections 239 and 240 of the CrPC, the High Court delved into the rival contentions of the parties presented through their respective affidavits extensively. The court, after a thorough discussion, passed the contested order. This approach cannot be endorsed; firstly, because findings regarding the commission of an offense cannot rest on affidavit evidence, and secondly, because at the charge-framing stage, the court cannot usurp the functions of a trial court to delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the case.”

The crux of the matter lies in the contention that, according to the prevailing judgment, adhering to Minakshi Bala’s view would unduly restrict the High Court’s discretion when considering discharge applications.

“If Paragraph 8 of Minakshi Bala (supra) is adhered to as is, the inevitable consequence would be that, despite a detailed examination of the matter, a court would find itself constrained in intervening. This would essentially compel an individual to face trial, even when overwhelming evidence points to their innocence,” noted the Court.

Despite this groundbreaking departure from precedent, the Court opted not to refer the matter to a higher bench for reconsideration, deeming such a move more suitable for a different case.

In its judgment, the Court also emphasized that High Courts bear the responsibility of quashing vexatious criminal proceedings. This critical reassessment of the legal landscape transpired in the case of Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3618 of 2023.