MONU versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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 of
charge-sheet – Charge-sheet filed under ss.420, 498A, 323, 376,
506 IPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Petition
filed under s.482 for quashing the charge sheet – By impugned
order, s.482 petition was dismissed by High Court on the ground
that there was no illegality or perversity in the eyes of law and no
good ground to interfere with the order of sessions judge – On
appeal, held: In the impugned order, there was no appreciation of
factual matrix of the case – The order was non-reasoned one and
did not disclose  application of mind to the case – Matter remitted
to 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 the
brief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix
and then should have examined the challenge made to the
proceedings on the question involved with a view to record the
findings on the grounds urged by the appellant as to whether any
case for interference therein is made out or not. The said exercise
was not done by the High Court while passing an unreasoned
impugned order, which does not disclose any application of mind
to the case.  [Paras 10, 11][53-B-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 21 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  29.10.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application U/s 482 No. 33965 of
2018.
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 51
51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Vivek Gupta, Pranav Kashyap, Mrinmay  Bhatt Mewara, Anirudh
Joshi, Advs. for the appellant.
Krishnanand Pandey, Adv. for the respondent.
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
29.10.2018 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. 33965 of 2018
whereby the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application
filed by the appellant herein.
3. Few facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the short
controversy involved in this appeal.
4. By impugned order, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s
application filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein the challenge
was to set aside the charge sheet dated 18.09.2015 and 22.09.2017 framed
by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track, Court No.3, Muzaffarnagar
arising out of Sessions Trial No.798 of 2017, State vs. Monu under
Sections 420, 498A, 323, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition 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’s
application filed under Section 482 of the Code.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case,  we are constrained to set aside the impugned
order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appellant’s
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
dismissed the application by passing the following order:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
“I have gone through the impugned order and I find that
there is no illegality or perversity either in the eye of law.  I
do not find any good ground to interfere with the order
impugned.”
9. We are unable to know much less to appreciate even the factual
matrix of the case after reading the impugned judgment.
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 should have examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the
light of the principles of law laid down by this Court on the question
involved with a view to record the findings on the grounds urged by the
appellant as to whether any case for interference therein is made out or
not.
11. We find that the aforementioned exercise was not done by the
High 

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