DR. JAGDISH PRASAD & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Leave granted

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
459
DR. JAGDISH PRASAD & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1542 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of
proceedings – Complaint filed against the appellant under ss.498A,
323 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 –
Application for quashing of proceeding dismissed by High Court –
On appeal, held: Single Judge of High Court quoted the principles
of law laid down in several decisions relating to powers of the High
Court under s.482 of the Code but did not refer to the facts of the
case to appreciate the controversy of the case – Matter remitted to
High Court for consideration afresh – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A,
323 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss. 3 and 4.
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to High
Court, the Court
HELD : The Single 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 with a view to
record the findings on the grounds urged by the appellant as to
whether any interference therein is called for or not. This exercise
was not done by the High Court while passing the impugned order.
[Paras 10 and 11][461-B-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1542 of 2018.
From the impugned final Order dated 13.09.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Application U/s 482 - No.35595 of 2017.
Rakesh Taneja, N. Rajaraman, Advs. for the Appellants.
Chandra Shekhar, Prashant Shikhar, Ms. Meena Hassan,
S.K. Verma, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 459
459
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
460                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
13.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an
Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) bearing No.35595 of 2017
whereby the Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellants
herein.
3. Few facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the short
controversy involved in this appeal.
4. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the
appellants’ application filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein the
challenge was to quash the order dated 21/09/2017 as well as entire
proceedings in Complaint Case No.2540 of 2017 (Mamta vs. Jagdish
Prasad & Ors.) under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Hathras pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, U.P.
5. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,
is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’
applications filed under Section 482 of the Code.
6. Heard Mr. Rakesh Taneja, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties 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.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Single Judge
has quoted the principles 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 not referred to the facts of the case to appreciate the
controversy of the case.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
461
9. We are, therefore, unable to know the factual matrix of the
case after reading the impugned judgment except the legal principles
laid down by this Court in several decisions.
10. In our view, the Single 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 with a view to record the findings
on the grounds urged by the appellants as to whether any interference
therein is called for or not.
11. We find that the af

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.