Gopal Govind Lakade vs. The State Of Maharashtra

2025 INSC 658
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10483/2024)
GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Respondent no.2 has been served. However, there is no
representation on behalf of respondent no.2. In the
circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the
appellant(s) and learned counsel for the respondent/State.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) drew our
attention to the impugned order. For immediate reference, the
impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal
Application No. 2439/2023 is extracted as under -
“P.C.
1. After hearing the learned advocate for the
applicants for sometime, we are not inclined even
to issue notice in this matter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.05.09
16:39:35 IST
Reason:
2. Writ petition stands dismissed.”
1

4. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that there
has been no consideration of the case of the appellant(s) by
the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court was not
even inclined to issue notice to the respondent(s) in the
application filed by the appellant(s) herein; that there is a
civil dispute between the appellant(s) and respondent no.2
which has been given a criminal colour and an FIR has been
lodged against the appellant(s) herein which was sought to be
quashed. There being no reason whatsoever for dismissing the
complaint, let alone declining to even issue notice, the
impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded
to the High Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent(s)/State submitted that
appropriate orders may be made in this appeal having regard to
the nature and tenor of the impugned order.
6. We find that the appellant(s) herein had filed a criminal
application seeking quashing of the complaint filed against the
appellant(s). If the Division Bench of the High Court was not
inclined to even issue notice to the respondent(s), then
reasons ought to have been assigned for that purpose, or in the
alternative, notice should have been issued to the
respondent(s) and after giving a fair opportunity to both
sides, dismissed the complaint on merits. In the absence of any
of the aforesaid options being exercised by the Division Bench
of the High Court, we find that the impugned order is in
2

violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as we
are not able to gather any reason as to why the High Court was
not inclined to even issue notice to respondent(s) in the
application filed by the appellant(s) herein seeking quashing
of the FIR registered against the appellant(s).
7. In the circumstances, we have no option but to set aside
the impugned order and restore Criminal Application No.
2439/2023 on the file of the High Court, by remanding the
matter to the High Court with a request to dispose the same on
its own merits and in accordance with law.
8. This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
…………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 06, 2025.
3

4