SATISH KUMAR JATAV versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. on 17 May 2022

270

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 3 S.C.R.

A

SATISH KUMAR JATAV

v.

THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

(Criminal Appeal No. 770 of 2022)

BMAY 17, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing ofcriminal proceedings – Legality of – Magistrate summoned theprivate respondents-accused for offences punishable u/ss.307, 504,C506 of IPC and s.3(10)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – High Court allowed applicationu/s.482 CrPC preferred by the private respondents–accused andquashed the criminal proceedings as well as summoning order ofthe Magistrate – Challenge to – Held: The order passed by theDHigh Court was a cryptic, non-speaking order – There was noindependent application of mind by the High Court on the legalityand validity of the order passed by the Magistrate – While quashingthe criminal proceedings, the High Court observed that no usefulpurpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case –The aforesaid cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all toEquash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made outfor the offences alleged – The cursory and casual manner in whichthe High Court disposed of the application u/s.482 CrPC andquashed the criminal proceedings is deprecated – Judgment of HighCourt is unsustainable both on facts as well as in law – Order passedFby Magistrate summoning the accused, accordingly, restored – IPC– ss.307, 504 and 506 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act – s.3(10)(15).

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court hasGemphasized that the High Court must pass a speaking andreasoned order in such matters. The impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court is however a cryptic, non-speaking order. There is no independent application of mind bythe High Court on the legality and validity of the order passed byHthe Magistrate summoning the accused. The Magistrate issued270

the summons against the accused after considering the statementsof the complainant as well as the witnesses recorded underSections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidenceon record including the injury certificate. The same has been setaside by the High Court in a most cursory and casual manner.[Para 6.2][274-H; 275-A-B]

2. Even from the impugned order passed by the High Courtit appears that while quashing the criminal proceedings, the HighCourt observed that no useful purpose will be served byprolonging the proceedings of the case. The aforesaid cannot bea good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminalproceedings when a clear case was made out for the offencesalleged. [Para 6.3][275-C-D]

3. The High Court has not at all observed on how the orderpassed by the Magistrate summoning the accused was wrong and/or erroneous. The manner in which the High Court has disposedof the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed thecriminal proceedings is deprecated. When serious allegations forthe offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section3(10)(15) of the Act were made, the High Court ought to havebeen more cautious and circumspect while considering theapplication under Section 482 CrPC and quashing the criminalproceedings for the aforesaid offences. Under the circumstances,the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable both on facts as well as in law. The order passed bythe Magistrate summoning the accused is hereby restored.[Paras 6.4 and 7][275-D-G]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo.770 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.)No.14607 of 2008.

Sudhir Dixit, Vishal Prasad, Utkarsh Dixit, Ms. Ritika Sethi, Advs.for the Appellant.

Vinod Diwakar, AAG, Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., Sarvesh SinghBaghel, Garvesh Kabra, B. N. Dubey, Akshay Saxena, Ms. Divya Bhalla, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAbhishek Chauhan, Tushar Jarwal, Kunal Dutt, Ms. B. VijayalakshmiMenon, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

B1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.No.14607 of 2008 by which the High Court has allowed the saidapplication under Section 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by the privaterespondents herein – original accused and has quashed the criminalCproceedings of Complaint Case No.1199 of 2005 as well as the summoningorder dated 04.02.2008 by which the learned Magistrate summoned theoriginal accused to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section3(10)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of DAtrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the originalcomplainant/informant has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are asunder:

That the appellant herein initially filed an application under SectionE156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused persons for the incident whichoccurred on 11.09.2004, as the local police of Police Station Inchauli,District Meerut did not lodge the FIR. Thereafter the learned Magistratepassed an order dated 04.10.2004 in Misc. Application No.390/11 of2004 directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Inchauli, DistrictFMeerut to lodge the FIR against the accused persons for the offencespunishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15)of the Act. That pursuant to the order dated 04.10.2004, a First InformationReport bearing Criminal Case No.7 of 2004 for the aforesaid offenceswas registered. The Investigating Officer submitted the closure report.According to the complainant the local police station was colluding withGthe accused and he was doubtful about a fair investigation and therefore,the complainant filed another Criminal Complaint Case No.2365 of 2004against the accused for the aforesaid offences.2.1 That the learned Magistrate issued notice to the complainantafter receiving the final report by the Investigating Officer of CrimeH

No.C-7/2004. The complainant filed the Protest Petition against the finalreport. The learned Magistrate passed an order dated 21.07.2005rejecting the final report. The proceedings arising from the police finalreport was merged into the proceedings of Criminal Complaint CaseNo.2365 of 2004 pending before the court of Learned Special C.J.M.Meerut. The learned Magistrate directed for recording the statementunder Section 161 Cr.P.C. The complainant recorded his statement underSection 200 Cr.P.C. So also, the statement of other witnesses PW1 toPW7 were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The injury report of thecomplainant was also brought on record. All the witnesses supportedthe prosecution case. Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed areasoned and detailed order vide order dated 04.02.2008 and directed toissue summons to the accused to face the trial for the offences punishableunder Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of theAct.

2.2 Being aggrieved the respondents - original accused approachedthe High Court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No.14607 of 2008and prayed to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of the powersunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment and a cryptic,non-reasoned one paragraph order, the High Court has quashed thecriminal proceedings which has given rise to the present appeal.

3. Shri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theoriginal complainant has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedingsagainst the accused is a cryptic, non-reasoned order. It is submitted thatas such, after narrating the submissions on behalf of the accused, thereis no further independent application of mind by the High Court and noreasons whatsoever have been assigned while quashing the criminalproceedings.

3.1 It is submitted that when the learned Magistrate after dueapplication of mind and considering the statements recorded underSections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the material on recordincluding the injury report had directed to issue summons upon the accusedto face the trial, the same was not required to be interfered with by theHigh Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has adoptedthe submissions made on behalf of the complainant.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A5. Shri Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein - original accused has supported theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. It is submittedthat in the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering thesubmissions made by learned counsel for the parties and thereafter whenthe High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings in exercise of powersBunder Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same may not be interfered with by thisCourt in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndia.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties at length. We have gone through and perused the order passedCby the learned Magistrate summoning the accused for the offencespunishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15)of the Act. We have also gone through and perused and considered theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing thecriminal proceedings against the accused persons in exercise of powersDunder Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court, we are of the opinion that the same is unsustainableboth in law as well as on facts. After narrating the submissions made bythe counsel appearing for the parties, we find that there is no furtherEdiscussion by the High Court on the allegations made against the accusedpersons and even on the legality and validity of the order passed by theMagistrate summoning the accused. The impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is a cryptic, non-reasoned order. After recordingthe submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and thereafterby passing one paragraph order without assigning any further reasons,Fthe High Court has allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.and has quashed the criminal proceedings. The one paragraph orderafter narrating the submissions made by the counsel for the parties readsas under:

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as notedGhereinabove, and also the submissions made by the counsel forthe parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no usefulpurpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the abovementioned case.”

6.2 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the impugned judgmentHand order passed by the High Court is a cryptic, non-speaking order. We

find no independent application of mind by the High Court on the legalityand validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoningthe accused. The learned Magistrate issued the summons against theaccused after considering the statements of the complainant as well asthe witnesses recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and afterconsidering the evidence on record including the injury certificate. Thesame has been set aside by the High Court in a most cursory and casualmanner. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of theapplication under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the criminalproceedings is not appreciated at all. In a catena of decisions, this Courthas emphasized that the High Court must pass a speaking and reasonedorder in such matters.

6.3 Even from the impugned order passed by the High Court itappears that while quashing the criminal proceedings, the High Courthas observed that no useful purpose will be served by prolonging theproceedings of the case. The aforesaid cannot be a good ground and/ora ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case wasmade out for the offences alleged.

6.4 The High Court has not at all observed on how the orderpassed by the learned Magistrate summoning the accused was wrongand/or erroneous. The manner in which the High Court has disposed ofthe application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed the criminalproceedings is deprecated. When serious allegations for the offencesunder Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of theAct were made, the High Court ought to have been more cautious andcircumspect while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.and quashing the criminal proceedings for the aforesaid offences. Underthe circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is unsustainable both on facts as well as in law.

7. In view of the above and for the reason stated above presentappeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Application No.14607of 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by the learnedMagistrate summoning the accused is hereby restored.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H