Accused’s right to seek discharge cannot be seen lightly: SC

Trial court has to sift through evidence to find out sufficient grounds to try suspect, it says

A view of the Supreme Court of India. File

The right of an accused to seek discharge before framing of charges in a criminal case is ‘valuable’, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.

“The trial court while considering the discharge application [of the accused] is not to act as a mere post office,” a three-judge Bench led by Chief JusticeN.V. Ramana said.

It said a trial court has to sift through the evidence to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. “The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on,” the judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant for the Bench said.

The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by Sanjay Kumar Rai, who runs a gas agency in Uttar Pradesh and was accused of intentionally insulting a person over the phone and criminal intimidation.

Trouble began for Rai when a person, introducing himself as a journalist, began digging into certain ‘irregularities’ about supply of gas from his agency. The ‘journalist’ had called Rai over the phone, mustered two witnesses and put the call on loudspeaker. He told Rai about his ‘investigation’ into the former’s affairs. Rai allegedly responded with insults and threatened to shoot the man dead.

A case was registered against Rai. However, Rai, well before the framing of charges, sought his discharge from the case on the ground that he was falsely implicated, the witnesses were planted and the allegations of telephonic threats do not constitute the offences arraigned against him.

He had further alleged that the probe was one-sided and the police had made no effort to “find out the truth”.

The trial court declined his plea for discharge and his plea before the Allahabad High Court was also refused.

Justice Kant however said the HC should have looked into the case more closely. An accused’s right to seek discharge cannot be seen lightly. “The High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice,” Justice Kant wrote.

The apex court remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh look. “In line with the fact that the High Court and the court below have not examined the fairness of criminal investigation in this case and other related aspects concerning improvement of witness statements, it is necessary for the High Court to reconsider the entire matter and decide the revision petition afresh,” the Supreme Court ordered.