Spread the love
DATE OF JUDGEMENT28 November 2023
COURTSupreme Court of India
APPELLANTVishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr
RESPONDENTThe State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr
BENCHMs. Kohli, Ahsanuddin Amanullah


In this appeal, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature in Allahabad challenges the Final Judgment and Order rendered in Case U/S 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. No. 4929 of 2017 on August 2, 2017. The High Court affirmed the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, dated 02.06.2017, which denied the appellants’ request for discharge. The respondent, a renter, has charged the married couple who are the appellants with several violations about the store premises.


  1. Respondent No. 2 (R2), a tenant of a store owned by Hari Narayan Shukla, filed a formal complaint against the appellants and others on June 29, 2011, alleging that they had broken into the shop without permission, damaged the wall, and taken goods. The appellants claim that Appellant No. 2 (A2) is the owner of the registered store and contend that the FIR is baseless and intended to impede their access to their property. 
  2. The appellants contend that the document is forged because it contains the Indian National Rupee symbol (₹), which was officially adopted on 26.08.2010, even though the memorandum is dated 24.11.2005. This is in response to R2’s Regular Suit, which seeks a permanent injunction based on a “Memorandum of Agreement of Tenancy” dated 24.11.2005. The appellants claimed perjury by presenting a falsified document in their application filed under Section 340 of the CrPC.
  3. After the filing of the FIR in 2011 was made available, which resulted in the appellants being called and placed on trial. R2 was not granted permission to file a suit against the appellants or to apply under Section 144, CrPC. Proceedings were suspended in 2012 due to A2’s transfer to the High Court.
  4. On 07.08.2011, the Trial Court took cognizance based on the Charge Sheet, prompting the appellants to approach the High Court under Section 482, CrPC in 2012. After R2 was found guilty of forgery (Section 463, IPC) by a court decision on December 18, 2014, the appellants applied for discharge on January 16, 2016.
  5. On April 10, 2014, the appellants received an order from the High Court directing them to file a discharge application with the appropriate court. The appellants filed a second discharge motion on January 16, 2016, after the Civil Judge determined on December 18, 2014, that the lawsuit was founded on falsified papers. On June 2, 2017, the Trial Court denied the motion despite possessing sufficient evidence to justify the discharge.


  1. The first issue revolves around challenging the legitimacy of the accusations made against the appellants in the FIR.
  2. The second concern involves the validity and acceptance of the “Memorandum of Agreement of Tenancy,” which was signed on November 24, 2005.
  3. The third issue is whether the respondent’s misuse and exploitation of the judicial system.


  1. The appellants’ knowledgeable attorney contends that the accusations in the FIR are baseless and intended to prevent the appellants from using their property. The store in dispute is claimed to be the legitimate property of Appellant No. 2 (A2), who purchased it through a valid Sale Deed.
  2. It is contended that the tenant, R2, filed a suit based on a ‘Memorandum of Agreement of Tenancy’ dated 24.11.2005, which purportedly includes the Indian Rupee symbol ₹. On August 26, 2010, the ₹ sign was formally authorized, which raises suspicions that the document may be falsified. The appellants have submitted an application under Section 340 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, accusing the court of perjury for presenting a fake document.
  3. Filed on July 1st, 2011, the FIR makes accusations of violations of Sections 448, 454, and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants contend that although no case was made out, the appellants were called and placed on trial because the police, working with R2, had filed a charge sheet.
  4. After A2 filed a rent control case, the High Court ordered that the case be kept on hold. After the Trial Court accepted the charge sheet, the appellants filed a motion under Section 482 of the CrPC with the High Court in order to get relief.
  5. The appellants emphasize that a civil judge, in a Miscellaneous Suit instituted on their application under Section 340 of the CrPC, found prima facie evidence of forgery committed by R2 and directed proceedings against him.
  6. In support of the appellants’ contention that the litigation was founded on falsified papers, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Lucknow, issued an order on December 18, 2014, concluding that R2 had committed an offense under Section 463 of the IPC.
  7. Despite having enough evidence to dismiss the case, the Trial Court denied the request for ambiguous reasons. The appellants filed a motion in the High Court according to Section 482 of the CrPC, but the contested judgment rejected their argument.
  8. The lack of proof for the accusations made in the first FIR under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC further establishes the appellants’ innocence.


  1. The State’s experienced counsel opposed the appellants’ discharge request and supported the Impugned Judgment. 
  2. Learned counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.


The court concludes that there is no strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the alleged offence. It claims that putting the appellants through a formal criminal trial would be unfair. The court chooses to step in and grant the appeal after criticizing the High Court’s inability to release the appellants. The criminal case against the appellants is closed for lack of evidence, and they are released from the obligations of their bail bonds.

Furthermore, the court indicates doubts regarding a certain precedent (Minakshi Bala) but chooses not to give it a further look in this instance. The verdict makes it clear that its ruling will not affect any ongoing legal lawsuits between the private parties.


After a thorough investigation, there is a strong argument in favour of intervention. It has been proved that at the time the alleged ‘Memorandum’ was signed, the Indian National Rupee symbol (₹) did not exist. A criminal action was filed by the relevant court since the second respondent’s (R2) tenancy claim is entirely predicated on a document that initially seems to be fake and falsified. Notably, R2 has not offered any more proof to support their claim of possession. The case under Section 448, IPC, against the appellants is weakened by the police’s inability to discover any violations of Sections 454 and 380. Notably, R2 has not been before this Court and has not challenged these conclusions or taken any additional action. As a result, it is decided that the case against the appellants is even more weak. Therefore, it may be concluded that R2’s criminal case is a clear misuse of the court system because A2 is unquestionably the rightful landlord. Furthermore, there is no justification provided in the Impugned Judgment or the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s June 2, 2017, judgment for not granting discharge. Until now, this evaluation has only taken into account the consideration of the available evidence and merits.


A court case concerning the purported falsification of a tenancy agreement paper. The Indian National Rupee symbol (₹) was absent during the claimed time. The appellants contend that the police did not discover any proof of violations against specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code and that the document is fake. The court is sceptical of the case, particularly because the purported renter (R2) did not protest the allegations and did not present in court.

The legal processes involved in these instances are then thoroughly discussed, with particular reference to Sections 239, 240, and 245 of India’s Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It talks about a magistrate’s ability to drop an accusation if it is found to be without merit. It also refers to precedents and decisions that have dealt with the scrutiny permissible during the discharge process.


  1. SCC Online
  2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116206067/ 

This Article is written by Bokka Twinkle student of Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University (DSNLU) an intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *