Rajeev Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Court
Supreme Court

REPORTABLE


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 938


CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4109/2026
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6801/2026]



RAJEEV SINGH AND ORS. APPELLANTS


VERSUS


STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. RESPONDENTS



J U D G M E N T


1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge is mounted by the appellants to an appellate judgment and
1 th
order dated 11 August, 2025 of a Single Judge of the High Court of
2 3
Judicature at Allahabad , whereby, their appeal under Section
14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
4
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been dismissed.
5
3. Appellants figured as accused in an FIR registered at Police Station
Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh under Sections 323/34, 324, 504,
506, 307/34, 336, 427, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2026.09.02
16:20:44 IST
Reason:
1
impugned order
2
High Court
3
Criminal Appeal No. 5968 of 2025

4
1989 Act
5
Case Crime No. 204 of 2022
Page 1 of 5

3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. They were, however, not
shown as accused in the chargesheet that was filed upon completion
rd
of investigation on 3 October, 2022. After trial commenced, an
application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 was filed by the complainant, respondent no. 2 before us. The
th
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, vide an order dated 11 June, 2025,
allowed the said application and summoned the appellants to face
trial. This order of the Special Judge has been upheld by the High
Court vide the impugned order.
4. Reading the impugned order, one finds it to be spread over effectively
two pages; it has eight paragraphs and fifteen sentences. The first
paragraph records presence of the learned counsel for the parties
who appeared before the High Court and were heard, as well as
perusal of the records by the learned Judge; the second paragraph
records provision of law upon invocation whereof, the criminal appeal
was presented and the particulars of the order under challenge; the
third paragraph records the prosecution story; the fourth paragraph
records the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants; the
fifth paragraph records the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the State as well as the complainant, followed by the last
three paragraphs which are quoted below:
“…6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record
including the impugned order carefully.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the gravity of the offence, evidence, complicity of
Page 2 of 5

the accused, specific allegations levelled against the appellants,
this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity
in the impugned summoning order and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

5. The impugned order, thus, does not spell out any reason for dismissal
of the appeal.
6. Although, we are conscious of the immense burden that Hon’ble
Judges of the High Court are required to shoulder, a laconic order
(such as the impugned order) can neither be appreciated nor
countenanced. Writing brief orders, in the circumstances of the heavy
burden being shouldered, could be a prudent approach but not at the
cost of reasons. Every judicial order must meet the basic minimum
standard required from a Judge of the High Court while disposing of
any matter before him, more so in a criminal appeal of the present
nature, where the appellants not found involved initially is forced to
face trial.
7. We may remind ourselves of the decision of this Court in Asma
6
Lateef and Another versus Shabbir Ahmad and Others , where
the observations made in paragraphs 57 and 58, though in respect of
civil proceedings, have equal relevance even in respect of
adjudication of criminal proceedings. The cardinal principle of the
justice delivery system was reiterated that every judicial verdict,
which determines the rights and liabilities of the parties to the

6
(2024) 4 SCC 696
Page 3 of 5

proceedings, must disclose not only the outcome, but also the
reasons therefor, i.e., why one party has succeeded and the other has
not. The insistence on reasons for the decision is for the simple
reason that it ensures application of mind by the adjudicator to the
material on record and also enables the unsuccessful party to test the
same before the higher forum. Lack of reasons, indicative of non-
application of mind, handicaps the higher court from discerning the
basis upon which the conclusion was arrived at and testing its legality
and/or correctness.
8. Indeed, the impugned order does not meet the standards of a
judgment/order, which is reasoned and speaking in the sense that
the affected party is in a position to comprehend what weighed in the
mind of the Judge to hold against him and in favour of the other.
9. It was the contention of the appellants before the Single Judge that
the chargesheet did not list them as accused because the
Investigating Officer found no evidence against them; yet, the Special
Judge in a routine manner summoned them to face trial. This being
the submission of the appellants, the minimum that was expected
and required of the Single Judge was to refer to some evidence led
in course of the trial which, upon application of the test laid down by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh versus State
7
of Punjab and Others , would have necessitated an order for the
appellants to face trial. Unfortunately, as noted above, the impugned

7
(2014) 3 SCC 92
Page 4 of 5

order does not refer to any evidence, far less cogent evidence, based
whereon the High Court could reach a conclusion of the appellants’
prima facie involvement in the crime.
10. It is on this short ground that we propose to interfere. The impugned
order stands quashed. We order a remand of the criminal appeal to
the roster Bench of the High Court. Such appeal shall now be disposed
of expeditiously, in accordance with law, upon granting opportunity
of hearing to the appellants, the State as well as the complainant.
11. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
12. Connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.



............................................J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)




............................................J.
(SHEEL NAGU)
New Delhi;
AUGUST 31, 2026.

Page 5 of 5