MONU versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR. on 7 January 2019

[2019] 1 S.C.R. 51

MONU

v.

STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2019)

JANUARY 07, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND

R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing ofcharge-sheet – Charge-sheet filed under ss.420, 498A, 323, 376,506 IPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Petitionfiled under s.482 for quashing the charge sheet – By impugnedorder, s.482 petition was dismissed by High Court on the groundthat there was no illegality or perversity in the eyes of law and nogood ground to interfere with the order of sessions judge – Onappeal, held: In the impugned order, there was no appreciation offactual matrix of the case – The order was non-reasoned one anddid not disclose application of mind to the case – Matter remittedto High Court for consideration afresh – Judgments/Orders –Non-reasoned order.

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,the Court HELD: The Single Judge ought to have first set out thebrief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrixand then should have examined the challenge made to theproceedings on the question involved with a view to record thefindings on the grounds urged by the appellant as to whether anycase for interference therein is made out or not. The said exercisewas not done by the High Court while passing an unreasonedimpugned order, which does not disclose any application of mindto the case. [Paras 10, 11][53-B-D]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo. 21 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2018 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Application U/s 482 No. 33965 of2018.

51

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

AVivek Gupta, Pranav Kashyap, Mrinmay Bhatt Mewara, AnirudhJoshi, Advs. for the appellant.

Krishnanand Pandey, Adv. for the respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated29.10.2018 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. 33965 of 2018Cwhereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the applicationfiled by the appellant herein.

3. Few facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the shortcontroversy involved in this appeal.

4. By impugned order, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’sDapplication filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein the challengewas to set aside the charge sheet dated 18.09.2015 and 22.09.2017 framedby the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track, Court No.3, Muzaffarnagararising out of Sessions Trial No.798 of 2017, State vs. Monu underSections 420, 498A, 323, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the DowryEProhibition Act, 1961, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-Muzaffarnagar.

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.F

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are constrained to set aside the impugnedorder and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appellant’sGapplication, out of which this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordancewith law.

8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Single Judgedismissed the application by passing the following order:

“I have gone through the impugned order and I find thatthere is no illegality or perversity either in the eye of law. Ido not find any good ground to interfere with the orderimpugned.”

9. We are unable to know much less to appreciate even the factualmatrix of the case after reading the impugned judgment.

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 andthen should have examined the challenge made to the proceedings in thelight of the principles of law laid down by this Court on the questioninvolved with a view to record the findings on the grounds urged by theappellant as to whether any case for interference therein is made out ornot.

11. We find that the aforementioned exercise was not done by theHigh Court while passing an unreasoned impugned order, which doesnot disclose any application of mind to the case.

12. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur with such casualdisposal 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 inaccordance 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 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

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H