Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1544 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9651 of 2018)
Geeta & 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 05.09.2018 passed by the High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.12.03
17:00:20 IST
Reason:
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application
1
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Code”) bearing No.29904 of 2018 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’ petition filed
under Section 482 of the Code wherein the
challenge was to quash the order dated 18.06.2018
as well as the entire proceedings in in Complaint
Case No. 537/2018 under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
“IPC”) Police Station Dhanuara, Dist. Amroha, J.P.
nd
Nagar pending in the Court of 2 Additional Civil
2
Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate,
Amroha, JP Nagar.
5. The short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’
application filed under Section 482 of the Code.
6. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned
counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the
respondents.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants 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.
3
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that
the Single Judge has only quoted the principle of
law laid down by this Court in several decisions
relating to powers of the High Court on the issue of
interference in cases filed under Section 482 of the
Code from Para 2 to the concluding para but has
failed to even refer to the facts of the case at hand
much less in detail to appreciate the factual
controversy.
9. In other words, the Single Judge has not
mentioned the bare 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, the
offences under which appellants prosecution is
sought, who filed the complaint/FIR/proceedings,
4
whether it pertains to a cognizable offence or not,
the grounds on which the complaint/FIR/
proceedings is challenged, why such grounds are
not made out under Section 482 of the Code etc.
10. 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.
11. In our view, the learned Judge ought to have
first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to
understand the factual matrix and then examined
the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of
the principles of law laid down by this Court to
enable him to record the findings as to on what
basis and the reasoning, these principles apply to
5
the facts of the case at hand so as to either call for
any interference therein or not.
12. Indeed, this is the least that is required in the
order in support of the conclusion. It enables the
Higher Court to appreciate the facts in its proper
perspective and also enable to examine the question
as to whether the reasoning given is factually and
legally sustainable.
13. We find that the aforementioned exercise was
not done by the High Court while passing the
impugned order.
14. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur
with 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
6
law keeping in view aforementioned observations
after issuing notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
15. Having formed an opinion to remand the case
in the light of our reasoning mentioned above, we do
not consider it proper to go into the merits of the
case.
16. 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.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
7