MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

FIR Quashed: High Court Protect Individuals From Vexatious Litigation: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, has set aside the High Court’s decision, thereby discharging a husband and wife duo, Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Vineeta Shukla, from all charges in a high-profile case involving allegations of house trespass, theft, and looting.

The apex court, in its detailed analysis, underscored the importance of preventing unwarranted criminal prosecution and unnecessary trials. This decision came in the wake of the appellants’ challenge against the High Court's judgment, which upheld the rejection of their discharge application.

Allegations and Accusations: The appellants were accused of locking a tenant's shop and looting various items, including wheat, sale money, and a two-wheeler, leading to an FIR under Sections 448, 454, and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Appellants' Defense: The appellants contested the legitimacy of the FIR, asserting their property ownership rights. They highlighted significant discrepancies in the complainant’s (R2) tenancy claim, particularly the anachronistic use of the ₹ symbol in a tenancy agreement, claimed to be from 2005 but introduced only in 2010.

Supreme Court's Analysis: The Court comprehensively examined the evidence and allegations, recognizing the introduction of the ₹ symbol in 2010 as a critical factor undermining R2’s claim to the property. The Court emphasized that the lack of strong suspicion against the appellants merited their discharge.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, discharging the appellants due to the absence of a strong suspicion against them. The Court highlighted the essential role of High Courts in protecting individuals from vexatious litigation.

“We are of the firm view that [Appellant 2], being the undisputed landlord, the criminal case filed by [Respondent 2], in the facts and circumstances, amounts to clear abuse of the process of the Court,” Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted in the judgment.

The decision marks a significant moment in the judiciary's approach towards criminal charges, emphasizing the necessity of scrutinizing the legitimacy of allegations before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The Supreme Court's judgment has been hailed as a beacon of judicial prudence, safeguarding personal liberties against wrongful prosecution.

Date of Decision: 28th November 2023

VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR. VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Latest Legal News