Supreme Court Clarifies: Detailed Reasons Not Needed for Summoning Witnesses Under Arbitration Act

The Supreme Court has underscored that when considering an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the court must apply its mind to ascertain if the case materials justify proceeding against the accused. The decision highlights that grounds for proceeding must be based on substantive evidence, not mere conjectures or suspicions. The Supreme Court reiterated that an accused can only be made to stand trial if the case record and accompanying documents disclose sufficient grounds to proceed. The Court emphasized that decisions should not rest on conjecture but on relevant and available material.

Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia stressed that it is the court's irrefutable duty to carefully consider the grounds for proceeding against the accused, based solely on the case record, the documents submitted, and after hearing both the accused and the prosecution. While typically the court records reasons only for discharging an accused, the Supreme Court held that, when rejecting an application for discharge under Section 227, the court must provide reasons, albeit briefly, to enable higher courts to review the decision effectively.

The Court clarified that during charge framing, judges can sift and weigh evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists but should not delve into appreciating the evidence's merit, which is reserved for the trial stage under Section 232 of the CrPC. In the matter of BPT Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indraprastha Ice And Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner sought to summon witnesses under Section 27(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral tribunal directed the petitioner to seek the High Court’s assistance, leading to this application.

Referring to the Allahabad High Court’s decision in BK Sharma v. State of UP, the Supreme Court noted that even significant suspicions must not form the basis for framing charges; rather, such decisions should rely on substantive evidence. The Court allowed the appeal and discharged the accused-appellant, citing that the trial court framed charges based on suspicion without legal evidence. This ruling reaffirms the judiciary's responsibility to ensure that charges against an accused are founded on solid evidence, not mere speculation, thereby protecting the rights of individuals and maintaining the integrity of judicial processes.

CASE DETAILS:

Counsels for Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR, Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv., Dr. Prashant Pratap, Adv., Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv., Mr. Gautam Mishra, Adv., Ms. Kinjal Aggarwal, Adv., Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv., Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv.

Counsels for Respondent(s): Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G., Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR, Mr. Abhinav S. Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv.

Case Title: Ram Prakash Chadha vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 475