Supreme Court of India
GEETA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 3 December 2018
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.[2018] 14 S.C.R. 466
A
GEETA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2018)
BDECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing ofproceedings – Complaint filed under s.498A IPC – Application forquashing the proceedings filed under s.482 dismissed by the HighCCourt – On appeal, held: High Court did not mention the bare factsof the case with a view to appreciate the factual controversy, suchas, what was the nature of the complaint/FIR filed against theappellants, the allegations on which it was filed, the offences underwhich appellants prosecution was sought, who filed the complaint/DFIR/proceedings, whether it pertained to a cognizable offence ornot, the grounds on which the complaint/FIR/ proceedings waschallenged, why such grounds were not made out under s.482 ofthe Code etc. – High Court ought to have first set out the brief factsof the case with a view to understand the factual matrix and thenexamined the challenge made to the proceedings to record theEfindings as to on what basis and the reasoning, these principlesapply to the facts of the case at hand so as to either call for anyinterference therein or not – Matter remitted to High Court forconsideration afresh – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A.
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to HighFCourt, the Court HELD : A perusal of the impugned order, showed that theSingle Judge has only quoted the principle of law laid down bythis Court in several decisions relating to powers of the HighCourt on the issue of interference in cases filed under SectionG482 of the Code but has failed to even refer to the facts of thecase at hand much less in detail to appreciate the factualcontroversy. The Judge ought to have first set out the brief factsof the case with a view to understand the factual matrix and thenexamined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light ofHthe principles of law laid down by this Court to enable him to record the findings as to on what basis and the reasoning, theseprinciples apply to the facts of the case at hand so as to either callfor any interference therein or not. Indeed, this is the least thatis required in the order in support of the conclusion. It enablesthe Higher Court to appreciate the facts in its proper perspectiveand also enable to examine the question as to whether thereasoning given is factually and legally sustainable. This exercisewas not done by the High Court while passing the impugned order.[Paras 8, 11-13][468-C-D, F-H; 469-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1544 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 05.09.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 29904 of 2018.
Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Sheenu Chauhan, VijayKumar Sharma, Sanjeev Malhotra, Advs. for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated05.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in anApplication filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) bearing No.29904 of 2018whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the applicationfiled by the appellants herein.
3. Few facts need mention infra to appreciate the short controversyinvolved in this appeal.
4. By impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissedthe appellants’ petition filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein thechallenge was to quash the order dated 18.06.2018 as well as the entireproceedings in in Complaint Case No. 537/2018 under Section 498-A ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) PoliceStation Dhanuara, Dist. Amroha, J.P. Nagar pending in the Court of 2ndAdditional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, JPNagar.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A
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 theappellants. None appeared for the respondents.
B
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and onperusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to set aside the impugnedorder and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appellants’application, out of which this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordancewith law after notice to other side.
C
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Single Judgehas only quoted the principle of law laid down by this Court in severaldecisions relating to powers of the High Court on the issue of interferencein cases filed under Section 482 of the Code from Para 2 to the concludingpara but has failed to even refer to the facts of the case at hand muchDless in detail to appreciate the factual controversy.
9. In other words, the Single Judge has not mentioned the barefacts of the case with a view to appreciate the factual controversy, suchas, what is the nature of the complaint/FIR filed against the appellants,the allegations on which it is filed, the offences under which appellantsEprosecution is sought, who filed the complaint/FIR/proceedings, whetherit pertains to a cognizable offence or not, the grounds on which thecomplaint/FIR/ proceedings is challenged, why such grounds are notmade out under Section 482 of the Code etc.
10. We are, therefore, at a loss to know the factual matrix of thecase much less to appreciate except to read the legal principles laidFdown by this Court in several decisions.
11. In our view, the learned Judge ought to have first set out thebrief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix andthen examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of theprinciples of law laid down by this Court to enable him to record theGfindings as to on what basis and the reasoning, these principles apply tothe facts of the case at hand so as to either call for any interferencetherein or not.
12. Indeed, this is the least that is required in the order in supportof the conclusion. It enables the Higher Court to appreciate the facts inH
GEETA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
its proper perspective and also enable to examine the question as towhether the reasoning given is factually and legally sustainable.
13. We find that the aforementioned exercise was not done by theHigh Court while passing the impugned order.
14. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur with the HighCourt and feel inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand thecase to the High Court (Single Judge) with a request to decide theapplication afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in viewaforementioned observations after issuing notice to respondent Nos. 1and 2.
15. Having formed an opinion to remand the case in the light ofour reasoning mentioned above, we do not consider it proper to go intothe merits of the case.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The case is remandedto the High Court for its decision on merits uninfluenced by any of ourobservations in this order.
Devika Gujral
Matter remanded to High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H