Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 770 of 2022
Satish Kumar Jatav ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.14607 of 2008
by which the High Court has allowed the said application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by the private
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2022.05.17
16:47:09 IST
Reason:
respondents herein – original accused and has quashed
the criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1199 of
1
2005 as well as the summoning order dated 04.02.2008
by which the learned Magistrate summoned the original
accused to face the trial for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 3(10)(15) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the
original complainant/informant has preferred the
present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are
as under:
That the appellant herein initially filed an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the
accused persons for the incident which occurred on
11.09.2004, as the local police of Police Station Inchauli,
District Meerut did not lodge the FIR. Thereafter the
learned Magistrate passed an order dated 04.10.2004 in
Misc. Application No.390/11 of 2004 directing the
Station House Officer, Police Station Inchauli, District
Meerut to lodge the FIR against the accused persons for
2
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of
the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act. That pursuant
to the order dated 04.10.2004, a First Information
Report bearing Criminal Case No.7 of 2004 for the
aforesaid offences was registered. The Investigating
Officer submitted the closure report. According to the
complainant the local police station was colluding with
the accused and he was doubtful about a fair
investigation and therefore, the complainant filed
another Criminal Complaint Case No.2365 of 2004
against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
2.1 That the learned Magistrate issued notice to the
complainant after receiving the final report by the
Investigating Officer of Crime No.C7/2004. The
complainant filed the Protest Petition against the final
report. The learned Magistrate passed an order dated
21.07.2005 rejecting the final report. The proceedings
arising from the police final report was merged into the
proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.2365 of 2004
pending before the court of Learned Special C.J.M.
3
Meerut. The learned Magistrate directed for recording
the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The
complainant recorded his statement under Section 200
Cr.P.C. So also, the statement of other witnesses PW1 to
PW7 were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The
injury report of the complainant was also brought on
record. All the witnesses supported the prosecution
case. Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed a
reasoned and detailed order vide order dated 04.02.2008
and directed to issue summons to the accused to face
the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307,
504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act.
2.2 Being aggrieved the respondents original accused
approached the High Court by way of Criminal Misc.
Application No.14607 of 2008 and prayed to quash the
criminal proceedings in exercise of the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment and a
cryptic, nonreasoned one paragraph order, the High
Court has quashed the criminal proceedings which has
given rise to the present appeal.
4
3. Shri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the original complainant has vehemently submitted that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the
accused is a cryptic, nonreasoned order. It is submitted
that as such, after narrating the submissions on behalf
of the accused, there is no further independent
application of mind by the High Court and no reasons
whatsoever have been assigned while quashing the
criminal proceedings.
3.1 It is submitted that when the learned Magistrate after
due application of mind and considering the statements
recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after
considering the material on record including the injury
report had directed to issue summons upon the accused
to face the trial, the same was not required to be
interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has
adopted the submissions made on behalf of the
complainant.
5. Shri Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein original
accused has supported the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court. It is submitted that in
the facts and circumstances of the case and after
considering the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and thereafter when the High Court has
quashed the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same may not be
interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties at length. We have gone through and
perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate
summoning the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section
6
3(10)(15) of the Act. We have also gone through and
perused and considered the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal
proceedings against the accused persons in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the
same is unsustainable both in law as well as on facts.
After narrating the submissions made by the counsel
appearing for the parties, we find that there is no further
discussion by the High Court on the allegations made
against the accused persons and even on the legality and
validity of the order passed by the Magistrate
summoning the accused. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is a cryptic, non
reasoned order. After recording the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, and thereafter by
passing one paragraph order without assigning any
further reasons, the High Court has allowed the
7
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed
the criminal proceedings. The one paragraph order after
narrating the submissions made by the counsel for the
parties reads as under:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, as noted hereinabove, and also the
submissions made by the counsel for the
parties, the court is of the considered opinion
that no useful purpose shall be served by
prolonging the proceedings of the above
mentioned case.”
6.2 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is a
cryptic, nonspeaking order. We find no independent
application of mind by the High Court on the legality and
validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate
summoning the accused. The learned Magistrate issued
the summons against the accused after considering the
statements of the complainant as well as the witnesses
recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after
considering the evidence on record including the injury
certificate. The same has been set aside by the High
Court in a most cursory and casual manner. The
manner in which the High Court has disposed of the
8
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the
criminal proceedings is not appreciated at all. In a
catena of decisions, this Court has emphasized that the
High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order in
such matters.
6.3 Even from the impugned order passed by the High Court
it appears that while quashing the criminal proceedings,
the High Court has observed that no useful purpose will
be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case. The
aforesaid cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at
all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case
was made out for the offences alleged.
6.4 The High Court has not at all observed on how the order
passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the
accused was wrong and/or erroneous. The manner in
which the High Court has disposed of the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed the criminal
proceedings is deprecated. When serious allegations for
the offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and
9
Section 3(10)(15) of the Act were made, the High Court
ought to have been more cautious and circumspect while
considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and quashing the criminal proceedings for the aforesaid
offences. Under the circumstances the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable both on facts as well as in law.
7. In view of the above and for the reason stated above
present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Application No.14607 of 2008
is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by
the learned Magistrate summoning the accused is hereby
restored.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
May 17, 2022.
10