Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. has held that while considering the discharge application only the documents forming part of the chargesheet to be considered. 

What was the Background of the Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Case? 

• The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma (appellant) and his wife(defendant)  
• Prior to 8^th May, 2019, the appellant filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). 
•  In this petition, he sought a declaration to nullify his marriage. 
• On 8^th May 2019, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the appellant. 
• The FIR accused him of offenses under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).   
• Appellant initially filed a writ petition to quash the FIR. However, in November 2020, he withdrew this petition. 
• On 23^rd June 2021, a Family Court passed an ex-parte decree of nullity of marriage. 
• Subsequently, appellant filed another writ petition seeking to quash the FIR. This petition was dismissed by the High Court. 
• The wife (second respondent) challenged the ex-parte decree of nullity before the High Court. 
• The High Court directed the trial court to take into account the present writ petition. 
• The same has been challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court after filing the writ petition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • High Court's Procedural Error: 
    • The High Court committed a "gross error" by directing the Trial Court to consider documents not part of the charge-sheet while framing charges. 
    • This direction was contrary to the legal principle established in the State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) case, which states that while considering discharge, a Trial Court cannot consider documents outside the charge-sheet. 
  • Incomplete Hearing of Writ Petition: 
    • The High Court did not consider the merits of the writ petition seeking to quash the FIR. 
    • The court noted that various grounds were urged in the writ petition, including the argument that filing the FIR after appellant’s petition for marriage nullity was an abuse of legal process. 
  • Timing of FIR Challenge: 
    • The court rejected the argument that a challenge to an FIR must be made at its inception. 
    • It clarified that an accused can challenge an FIR at any stage of the proceedings, either under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
    • The court emphasized that whether to entertain such a challenge is at the discretion of the High Court. 
• The Supreme Court, based on the above observations, found that the High Court's order to be "completely illegal". 
  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the original writ petition of the appellant to be heard again. 
  • The Supreme Court clearly states that while considering the discharge application only the documents forming part of the chargesheet to be considered.

What is a Discharge Application? 

About: 

• Earlier section 227 of CrPC deals with the discharge of the accused in sessions cases. 
• The same has now been covered under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• It states that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 
• The new subsection (1) has been added under the Sanhita which states that the accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232 of BNSS. 
• This section was enacted for the purpose of saving the accused from unnecessary harassment. 

Case Law: 

• State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (1977) 
  • The Supreme Court held that the object of the provisions which require the Session Judge to record its reasons while entertaining discharge petition under section 227 of CrPC is to enable the superior court to examine illegality of the impugned order.  
  • In that case the trial court did not assign any reason in the impugned order while refusing to discharge the accused as such it suffers from serious infirmity. 
• Asim Shariff v. NIA (2019) 
  • The Supreme Court held that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected that the Trial Judge to exercise his judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not.
  • The Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record.