In a crucial decision that reinforces procedural fairness, the Supreme Court of India ruled that trial courts cannot consider documents outside the charge-sheet when deciding a discharge petition or framing charges. The judgment, delivered on November 21, 2024, in the case of Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., highlights the sanctity of legal procedures in criminal trials.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute between Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma (Appellant) and his estranged wife (Second Respondent). The wife had filed an FIR in May 2019, accusing her husband under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The husband, however, contended that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law.
Timeline of Events:
1. 2019: The appellant filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to declare his marriage null and void.
2. June 2021: The Family Court granted an ex parte decree of nullity.
3. November 2022: The appellant approached the Delhi High Court to quash the FIR on grounds of abuse of process, but the High Court dismissed the plea. The court further directed the trial court to consider the decree of nullity and its pending appeal while deciding on the framing of charges.
4. November 2024: The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Can the trial court consider documents not forming part of the charge-sheet at the stage of discharge or framing of charges?
2. Does the High Court have the discretion to refuse quashing an FIR solely because the challenge was not raised at its inception?
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih made the following key observations while overturning the High Court’s order:
1. On Considering Extraneous Documents:
– Referring to the landmark decision in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005), the Supreme Court held:
“While considering the prayer for discharge, the trial court cannot consider any document which is not part of the charge-sheet. Directions given by the High Court in this regard are completely illegal.”
2. On the High Court’s Approach:
– The Court found fault with the High Court’s direction to the trial court to rely on the decree of nullity and the pending appeal, which were not part of the charge-sheet:
“To say the least, the High Court has committed a gross error by directing the trial court to consider documents not forming part of the charge-sheet.”
3. On Timing of FIR Challenges:
– Rejecting the argument that FIRs must always be challenged at their inception, the Court clarified:
“An accused can adopt remedies under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution at any stage. The argument that FIR challenges must be rejected because they were not raised at the earliest stage is untenable.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court:
– Set aside the Delhi High Court’s order dated November 7, 2023.
– Restored the appellant’s writ petition for fresh consideration by the High Court.
– Directed the High Court to hear the case on December 17, 2024, and decide it on merit.
The Court also extended the interim relief granted earlier, staying the trial proceedings, until the writ petition is resolved.
Representation
– Appellant: Represented by Advocates Devendra Singh, Vivek Sharma, and others.
– Respondents:
– State of NCT of Delhi: Represented by Additional Solicitor General Satya Darshi Sanjay and a team of lawyers.
– Complainant Wife: Represented by Advocate Lal Singh Thakur and others.
