GEETA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 466 · 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
466                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
GEETA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of  2018)
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
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/
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
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
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
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
the principles of law laid down by this Court to enable him to
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 466
466
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
record the 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.  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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
GEETA & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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 resp

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