Supreme Court of India
LAJPAT & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 6 December 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1107
LAJPAT & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2018)
DECEMBER 06, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Applicationunder, to quash charges under Penal Code – Dismissal of, by theSingle Judge quoting principles of law laid down by this Courtrelating to powers of the High Court to interfere in cases filed u/s.482 but without mentioning the facts of the case – On appeal held:Single Judge ought to have first set out the brief facts of the casewith a view to understand the case and then examined the challengemade to the proceedings in the light of the principles of law laiddown by this Court and then recorded his finding as to on whatbasis and reasons, a case is made out for any interference or not –Such disposal of the application by the High Court cannot beconcurred with – Matter remanded to the High Court to decide theapplication afresh.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The Single Judge has only quoted the principlesof law laid down by this Court in several decisions relating topowers of the High Court to interfere in the cases filed underSection 482 Cr.P.C. but has failed to even refer to the facts of thecase 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, who filed it, the grounds onwhich the complaint/FIR/proceedings is challenged by theappellants, why such grounds are not made out under Section482 of the Code etc. Therefore, this Court is at a loss to knowthe factual matrix of the case much less to appreciate except toread the legal principles laid down by this Court in severaldecisions. [Paras 8, 9][1109-D-F]
1.2 The Single Judge ought to have first set out the brieffacts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix of
1107
A
B
CD
E
F
G
H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Athe 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 andreasons, 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 toBexamine the question as to whether the reasoning given by theCourt below is factually and legally sustainable. The said exercisewas not done by the High Court while passing the impugned orderand hence interference is called for. Such disposal of theapplication by the High Court cannot be concurred with andCimpugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to theHigh Court to decide the application afresh on merits inaccordance with law. [Paras 10-13][1109-F-H; 1110-A-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1569 of 2018.DFrom the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 35 of 2017.
Siddharth Mittal, Adv. for the Appellants.
Manoj Mishra, Ankit Pandey, Shashank Shekhar Singh Advs. forEthe Respondents.
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.
F2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated10.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in anApplication No.35 of 2017 filed under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) whereby theSingle Judge of the High Court dismissed the application filed by theappellants herein.G
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 whereinHthe challenge was to quash Charge Sheet No.1 dated 07.05.2016 in
Case Crime No.441 of 2015 under Sections 420, 406 and 504 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), P.S. Khair,District Aligarh in Case No.486 of 2016 (State vs. Lajpat & Ors.)pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh.
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. Siddharth Mittal, learned counsel for the appellants.Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned counsel was asked to take notice for theState.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof 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.
8. 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 thecomplaint/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 thecase 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 inthe 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 the A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
AHigher 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 bythe High Court while passing the impugned order and hence interferenceis called for.
B
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 the aforementioned observations after issuingCnotice to 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 andDis 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 the respondents.
E
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
F
G
H