A case for interference has been made out. The symbol for Indian National Rupee symbol [₹] was not in existence when purported ‘Memorandum of Agreement of Tenancy’ was signed.

Minakshi Bala v Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142: “Court cannot usurp functions of a Trial Court to delve into and decide upon respective merits.” Court would find its wings clipped to intercede if Paragraph 8 of Minakshi Bala is accepted as it is. This would amount to forcing a person to stand trial, even when ‘overwhelming’ material points to his/her innocence. Obviously, hands of a Court ought not to be tied down, and not against liberty.

We have chosen to survey precedents further and then decide on the road we wish to take. Yes, the allusion is to Robert Frost’s celebrated ‘The Road Not Taken’.

On a careful conspectus of legal spectrum, juxtaposed with our view on facts and merits, we are satisfied there is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion. It would be unjustified to make Vishnu & Vineeta face a full-fledged criminal trial. They are “to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution, and from unnecessarily being put through rigours of an eventual trial” [Priyanka Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 978]. High Court should have intervened and discharged. But, this Court will intervene being ‘the sentinel on the qui vive’.

Insofar as Minakshi Bala is concerned, we do not find any need to burden a Larger Bench. ‘In a more appropriate case’, perhaps.

– Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Vineeta Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 3618 of 2023].