Supreme Court of India
OMVEER SINGH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 3 December 2018
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.[2018] 14 S.C.R. 456
A
OMVEER SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2018)
B
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing ofproceedings – Complaint filed against the appellant under ss.498A,323, 376 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 –CApplication for quashing of proceeding dismissed by High Court –On appeal, held: Single Judge of High Court quoted the principlesof law laid down in several decisions relating to powers of the HighCourt under s.482 of the Code but did not refer to the facts of thecase to appreciate the controversy of the case – Matter remitted toDHigh Court for consideration afresh – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A,323, 376 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss. 3 and 4.
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to HighCourt, the Court HELD : The Single Judge ought to have first set out theEbrief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrixand then examined the challenge made to the proceedings in thelight of the principles of law laid down by this Court with a view torecord the findings on the grounds urged by the appellant as towhether any interference therein is called for or not. This exerciseFwas not done by the High Court while passing the impugned order.[Paras 10 and 11][458-B-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1541 of 2018.
From the impugned final Order dated 13.09.2018 of the High CourtGof Judicature at Allahabad in Application U/s 482 - No.36284 of 2017.
Rakesh Taneja, N. Rajaraman, Advs. for the Appellant.
Chandra Shekhar, Prashant Shikhar, Ms. Meena Hassan,S.K. Verma, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
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 dated13.09.2018 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.36284 of 2017whereby the Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellantherein.
3. Few facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the shortcontroversy involved in this appeal.
4. By impugned order, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’sapplication filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein the challengewas to quash the order dated 21/09/2017 as well as entire proceedingsin Complaint Case No.2540 of 2017 (Mamta vs. Jagdish Prasad &Ors.) under Sections 498A, 323, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the DowryProhibition Act, 1961 Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hathraspending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.
5. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’sapplication filed under Section 482 of the Code.
6. Heard Mr. Rakesh Taneja, learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case we are inclined to set aside the impugned orderand remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appellant’sapplication, out of which this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordancewith law.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Single Judgehas quoted the principles 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 not referred to the facts of the case to appreciate thecontroversy of the case.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A
9. We are, therefore, unable to know the factual matrix of thecase after reading the impugned judgment except the legal principleslaid down 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 andBthen examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of theprinciples of law laid down by this Court with a view to record the findingson the grounds urged by the appellant as to whether any interferencetherein is called for or not.
11. We find that the aforementioned exercise was not done by theCHigh Court while passing the impugned order.
12. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur with suchdisposal of the application by the High Court and feel inclined to setaside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court (SingleJudge) with a request to decide the application afresh on merits inDaccordance with law keeping in view the aforementioned observations.
13. 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.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andEis 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.
F
Devika Gujral
Matter remanded to High Court.
G
H