Supreme Court of India
SANGEETA AGRAWAL & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 3 December 2018
A
SANGEETA AGRAWAL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1543 of 2018)
B
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing ofproceedings – Complaint filed under ss.498A, 304B IPC –Application for quashing the proceedings filed under s.482 dismissedCby the High Court – On appeal, held: High Court did not mentionthe bare facts of the case with a view to appreciate the factualcontroversy – High Court ought to have first set out the brief factsof the case with a view to understand the factual matrix of the caseand then examined the challenge made to the proceedings and thenDrecorded his finding as to on what basis and reasons, a case ismade out for any interference or not – Matter remitted to High Courtfor consideration afresh – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A and 304B.
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to Highcourt, the CourtE
HELD : The Single Judge ought to have first set out thebrief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrixof the case and then examined the challenge made to theproceedings in the light of the principles of law laid down by thisCourt and then recorded his finding as to on what basis andFreasons, a case is made out for any interference or not. This isthe least that is required in every order to support the conclusionreached for disposal of the case. It enables the Higher Court toexamine the question as to whether the reasoning given by theCourt below is factually and legally sustainable. This exercisewas not done by the High Court while passing the impugned orderGand hence interference is called for. [Paras 10, 11 and 12][464-D-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1543 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 12.09.2018 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 31729 of2018.
Praveen Swarup, Ms. Chitra Chaudhary, Shashank Singh,Prashant Chaudhary, 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 dated12.09.2018 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.31729 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 shortcontroversy involved in this appeal.
4. By impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissedthe appellants’ application filed under Section 482 of the Code whereinthe challenge was to quash the Charge Sheet dated 12.06.2018 as wellas the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.2767 of 2018 (State vs.Arvind & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.79 of 2018 under Sections498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as“IPC”) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police StationDhampur, District Bijnor, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Bijnor.
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. Praveen Swarup, learned counsel for the appellants.None appeared for the respondents.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A
A8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Single Judgehas only quoted the principles of law laid down by this Court in severaldecisions relating to powers of the High Court to interfere in the casesfiled under Section 482 of the Code from Para 2 to the concluding parabut has failed to even refer to the facts of the case with a view toappreciate the factual controversy, such as, what is the nature of theBcomplaint/FIR filed against the appellants, the allegations on which it isfiled, who filed it, the grounds on which the complaint/FIR/proceedingsis challenged by the appellants, why such grounds are not made outunder Section 482 of the Code etc.
9. We are, therefore, at a loss to know the factual matrix of theCcase much less to appreciate except to read the legal principles laiddown by this Court in several decisions.
10. In our view, the Single Judge ought to have first set out thebrief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix ofthe case and then examined the challenge made to the proceedings inDthe light of the principles of law laid down by this Court and then recordedhis finding as to on what basis and reasons, a case is made out for anyinterference or not.
11. In our view, this is the least that is required in every order tosupport the conclusion reached for disposal of the case. It enables theEHigher Court to examine the question as to whether the reasoning givenby the Court below is factually and legally sustainable.
12. We find that the aforementioned exercise was not done by theHigh Court while passing the impugned order and hence interference iscalled for.F
13. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur with such disposalof the application by the High Court and feel inclined to set aside theimpugned order and remand the case to the High Court (Single Judge)with a request to decide the application afresh on merits in accordancewith law keeping in view aforementioned observations after issuing noticeGto respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
14. Having formed an opinion to remand the case in the light ofour reasoning, we do not consider it proper to go into the merits of thecase.
15. 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 after notice to respondents.
Devika Gujral
Matter remanded to High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H