The Supreme Court has reiterated that a Trial Court, while considering an application for discharge, cannot consider any document that is not part of the chargesheet. The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition against an Order of the Delhi High Court directing the Trial Court to consider certain documents that were not a part of the chargesheet at the time of framing of charges.

Calling the directions given by the High Court "completely illegal", a two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, "Contrary to law laid down by this Court, the High Court has directed the Trial Court to consider the documents which are not part of the charge-sheet at the time of framing of charge."

Advocate Devendra Singh appeared for the Appellant; Additional Solicitor General Satya Darshi Sanjay appeared for the Respondent-State.

The matter originated with the filing of a petition seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A First Information Report was thereafter filed under criminal law provisions relating to subjecting a married woman to cruelty, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy. Against this, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court, but was later withdrawn. Thereafter, the Family Court granted a decree of nullity of marriage.

By the High Court's Order under question, it was directed that the decree of nullity as well as the appeal preferred by one of the Respondents shall be placed before the Trial Court. The High Court went further and said the Trial Court shall take into account the decree of nullity and the appeal while hearing the arguments on charge. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not consider the merits of the petition praying for quashing the FIR, which the petitioner argued was an abuse of the process of law.

"To say the least, the High Court has committed a gross error by directing the Trial Court to consider the decree of nullity and appeal preferred by the second respondent at the time of framing of charge." the Supreme Court said.

The Judgment in State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi (2005), delivered by the Supreme Court, was cited to reiterate the "well-settled law" that while considering the prayer for discharge, the Trial Court cannot consider any document which is not the part of the charge-sheet.

Noting that the High Court had not considered the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on merits, the Court observed that the Order was "completely illegal".

The Court aside the Order in question and restored the Writ Petition before the High Court. The Court specified a the date on which the restored petition shall be listed, on which day the High Court would fix a date for hearing the petition. The Court directed that the parties who were represented before it shall be under an obligation to appear before the High Court, and no further notice shall be served. "We make it clear that all questions are left open to be decided by the High Court," the Court clarified.

Cause Title: Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi [Special Leave Petition (Crl) 5290/2024)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Devendra Singh, Vivek Sharma, Vikas Sharma, Prashant Chaudhary, Ram Kumar, Rajeev Kumar Jha

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Satya Darshi Sanjay, Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Meera Patel, Akshay Amritanshu, Bhuvan Kapoor, B K Satija, Lal Singh Thakur, Syed Mehdi Imam, Tabrez Ahmad, Sudhir Teotiya and Himanshu Vats

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Abhay S. OkaJustice Augustine George Masih

Tushar Kohli