Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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