GEETA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

466                SUPREME[2018]
                           COURT 14REPORTS
                                   S.C.R. 466             [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A                               GEETA & ORS.
                                        v.
                    STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2018)
B                            DECEMBER 03, 2018
      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
            Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of
      proceedings – Complaint filed under s.498A IPC – Application for
      quashing the proceedings filed under s.482 dismissed by the High
C
      Court – On appeal, held: High Court did not mention the bare facts
      of the case with a view to appreciate the factual controversy, such
      as, what was the nature of the complaint/FIR filed against the
      appellants, the allegations on which it was filed, the offences under
      which appellants prosecution was sought, who filed the complaint/
D     FIR/proceedings, whether it pertained to a cognizable offence or
      not, the grounds on which the complaint/FIR/ proceedings was
      challenged, why such grounds were not made out under s.482 of
      the Code etc. – High Court ought to have first set out the brief facts
      of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix and then
      examined the challenge made to the proceedings to record the
E
      findings as to on what basis and the reasoning, these principles
      apply to the facts of the case at hand so as to either call for any
      interference therein or not – Matter remitted to High Court for
      consideration afresh – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A.
           Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to High
F
      Court, the Court
            HELD : A perusal of the impugned order, showed that the
      Single Judge has only quoted the principle of law laid down by
      this Court in several decisions relating to powers of the High
      Court on the issue of interference in cases filed under Section
G     482 of the Code but has failed to even refer to the facts of the
      case at hand much less in detail to appreciate the factual
      controversy. The Judge ought to have first set out the brief facts
      of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix and then
      examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of
H     the principles of law laid down by this Court to enable him to
                                     466
    GEETA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                           467


record the findings as to on what basis and the reasoning, these            A
principles apply to the facts of the case at hand so as to either call
for any interference therein or not. Indeed, this is the least that
is required in the order in support of the conclusion. It enables
the Higher Court to appreciate the facts in its proper perspective
and also enable to examine the question as to whether the
                                                                            B
reasoning given is factually and legally sustainable. This exercise
was not done by the High Court while passing the impugned order.
[Paras 8, 11-13][468-C-D, F-H; 469-A-B]
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1544 of 2018.
                                                                            C
      From the Judgment and Orders dated 05.09.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 29904 of 2018.
    Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Sheenu Chauhan, Vijay
Kumar Sharma, Sanjeev Malhotra, Advs. for the Appellants.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            D
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
       1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
05.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an        E
Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) bearing No.29904 of 2018
whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application
filed by the appellants herein.
      3. Few facts need mention infra to appreciate the short controversy   F
involved in this appeal.
      4. By impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed
the appellants’ petition filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein the
challenge was to quash the order dated 18.06.2018 as well as the entire
proceedings in in Complaint Case No. 537/2018 under Section 498-A of        G
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) Police
Station Dhanuara, Dist. Amroha, J.P. Nagar pending in the Court of 2nd
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, JP
Nagar.

                                                                            H
468                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A           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. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
      appellants. None appeared for the respondents.
B            7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on
      perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to set aside the impugned
      order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appellants’
      application, out of which this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordance
      with law after notice to other side.
C            8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Single Judge
      has only quoted the principle of law laid down by this Court in several
      decisions relating to powers of the High Court on the issue of interference
      in cases filed under Section 482 of the Code from Para 2 to the concluding
      para but has failed to even refer to the facts of the case at hand much
D     less in detail to appreciate the factual controversy.
             9. In other words, the Single Judge has not mentioned the bare
      facts of the case 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, the offences under which appellants
E     prosecution is sought, who filed the complaint/FIR/proceedings, whether
      it pertains to a cognizable offence or not, the grounds on which the
      complaint/FIR/ proceedings is challenged, why such grounds are not
      made out under Section 482 of the Code etc.
            10. We are, therefore, at a loss to know the factual matrix of the
F     case much less to appreciate except to read the legal principles laid
      down by this Court in several decisions.
             11. In our view, the learned Judge ought to have first set out the
      brief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix and
      then examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of the
      principles of law laid down by this Court to enable him to record the
G
      findings as to on what basis and the reasoning, these principles apply to
      the facts of the case at hand so as to either call for any interference
      therein or not.
             12. Indeed, this is the least that is required in the order in support
      of the conclusion. It enables the Higher Court to appreciate the facts in
H
     GEETA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                             469
              [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

its proper perspective and also enable to examine the question as to           A
whether the reasoning given is factually and legally sustainable.
      13. We find that the aforementioned exercise was not done by the
High Court while passing the impugned order.
       14. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur with the High
Court and feel inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the         B
case to the High Court (Single Judge) with a request to decide the
application afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view
aforementioned observations after issuing notice to respondent Nos. 1
and 2.
       15. Having formed an opinion to remand the case in the light of         C
our reasoning mentioned above, we do not consider it proper to go into
the merits of the case.
       16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and
is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded
to the High Court for its decision on merits uninfluenced by any of our        D
observations in this order.

Devika Gujral                                 Matter remanded to High Court.


                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H