Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1569 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 10034 of 2018)
Lajpat & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.12.07
14:54:06 IST
Reason:
No.35 of 2017 filed under Section 482 of the Code of
1
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Code”) whereby the Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed the application filed by the
appellants herein.
3. Few facts need mention infra to appreciate the
short controversy involved in this appeal.
4. By impugned order, the Single Judge of the
High Court dismissed the appellants’ application
filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein the
challenge was to quash Charge Sheet No.1 dated
07.05.2016 in Case Crime No.441 of 2015 under
Sections 420, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), P.S.
Khair, District Aligarh in Case No.486 of 2016
( State vs. Lajpat & Ors. ) pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh.
5. The short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
2
Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’
application filed under Section 482 of the Code.
6. Heard Mr. Siddharth Mittal, learned counsel
for the appellants. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned
counsel was asked to take notice for the State.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to set aside the impugned order and
remand the case to the High Court for deciding the
appellants’ application, out of which this appeal
arises, afresh on merits in accordance with law after
notice to other side.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that
the Single Judge has only quoted the principles of
law laid down by this Court in several decisions
relating to powers of the High Court to interfere in
the cases filed under Section 482 of the Code from
Para 2 to the concluding para but has failed to even
3
refer to the facts of the case with a view to
appreciate the factual controversy, such as, what is
the nature of the complaint/FIR filed against the
appellants, the allegations on which it is filed, who
filed it, the grounds on which the
complaint/FIR/proceedings is challenged by the
appellants, why such grounds are not made out
under Section 482 of the Code etc.
9. We are, therefore, at a loss to know the factual
matrix of the case much less to appreciate except to
read the legal principles laid down by this Court in
several decisions.
10. In our view, the Single Judge ought to have
first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to
understand the factual matrix of the case and then
examined the challenge made to the proceedings in
the light of the principles of law laid down by this
Court and then recorded his finding as to on what
4
basis and reasons, a case is made out for any
interference or not.
11. In our view, this is the least that is required in
every order to support the conclusion reached for
disposal of the case. It enables the Higher Court to
examine the question as to whether the reasoning
given by the Court below is factually and legally
sustainable.
12. We find that the aforementioned exercise was
not done by the High Court while passing the
impugned order and hence interference is called for.
13. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur
with such disposal of the application by the High
Court and feel inclined to set aside the impugned
order and remand the case to the High Court (Single
Judge) with a request to decide the application
afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in
5
view the aforementioned observations after issuing
notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
14. Having formed an opinion to remand the case
in the light of our reasoning, we do not consider it
proper to go into the merits of the case.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned
order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High
Court for its decision on merits uninfluenced by any
of our observations in this order after notice to the
respondents.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 06, 2018
6