GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 6 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 05-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 307 : 2025 INSC 658
Gopal Govind Lakade & Anr. 
v. 
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2483 of 2025)
06 May 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the 
High Court dismissing the application of the appellants seeking 
quashing of the complaint, and that too without issuing notice to 
respondents.
Headnotes†
Notices/Processes – Non-issuance of, by the court – Violation 
of natural justice – Criminal application by the appellants 
seeking quashing of complaint filed against them – High Court 
dismissed the application, and was not even inclined to issue 
notice to the respondents – Correctness: 
Held: If the Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined 
to even issue notice to the respondents, then reasons ought 
to have been assigned for that purpose, or in the alternative, 
notice should have been issued to the respondents and after 
giving a fair opportunity to both sides, dismissed the complaint 
on merits – In the absence of any of the options being exercised 
by the Division Bench of the High Court, impugned order is in 
violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no reason 
can be gathered as to why the High Court was not inclined to 
even issue notice to respondents in the application filed by the 
appellants seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the 
appellants – Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to 
the High Court. [Paras 6, 7]
List of Keywords
Quashing of complaint; Notice; Fair opportunity; Violation of 
principles of natural justice.
308
[2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2483 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRA No. 2439 of 2023
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Ashok Kumar Gupta Ii.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Varad Kilor, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Leave granted.
2.	
Respondent no.2 has been served. However, there is no representation 
on behalf of respondent no.2. In the circumstances, we have heard 
learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the 
respondent/State.
3.	
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) drew our attention to 
the impugned order. For immediate reference, the impugned order 
dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of 
Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal Application No. 2439/2023 
is extracted as under -
“P.C.
1. After hearing the learned advocate for the applicants 
for sometime, we are not inclined even to issue notice in 
this matter.
2. Writ petition stands dismissed.”
4.	
Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that there has been 
no consideration of the case of the appellant(s) by the Division Bench 
of the High Court. The High Court was not even inclined to issue 
notice to the respondent(s) in the application filed by the appellant(s) 
herein; that there is a civil dispute between the appellant(s) and 
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 
309
Gopal Govind Lakade & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
respondent no.2 which has been given a criminal colour and an FIR 
has been lodged against the appellant(s) herein which was sought 
to be quashed. There being no reason whatsoever for dismissing 
the complaint, let alone declining to even issue notice, the impugned 
order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the 
High Court. 
5.	
Learned counsel for the respondent(s)/State submitted that 
appropriate orders may be made in this appeal having regard to the 
nature and tenor of the impugned order. 
6.	
We find that the appellant(s) herein had filed a criminal application 
seeking quashing of the complaint filed against the appellant(s). 
If the Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined to even 
issue notice to the respondent(s), then reasons ought to have been 
assigned for that purpose, or in the alternative, notice should have 
been issued to the respondent(s) and after giving a fair opportunity 
to both sides, dismissed the complaint on merits. In the absence of 
any of the aforesaid options being exercised by the Division Bench 
of the High Court, we find that the impugned order is in violation 
of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as we are not able to 
gather any reason as to why
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.