SANGEETA AGRAWAL & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Leave granted
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
462                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
SANGEETA AGRAWAL & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1543 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 ss.498A, 304B 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 – High Court ought to have first set out the brief facts
of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix of the case
and then examined the challenge made to the proceedings and then
recorded his finding as to on what basis and reasons, a case is
made out for any interference or not – Matter remitted to High Court
for consideration afresh – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A and 304B.
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
of the case and then examined the challenge made to the
proceedings in the light of the principles of law laid down by this
Court and then recorded his finding as to on what basis and
reasons, a case is made out for any interference or not. This is
the least that is required in every order to support the conclusion
reached for disposal of the case. It enables the Higher Court to
examine the question as to whether the reasoning given by the
Court below is factually and legally sustainable. This exercise
was not done by the High Court while passing the impugned order
and hence interference is called for. [Paras 10, 11 and 12]
[464-D-F]
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 462
462
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
463
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1543 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 12.09.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 31729 of
2018.
Praveen Swarup, Ms. Chitra Chaudhary, Shashank Singh,
Prashant Chaudhary, 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
12.09.2018 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.31729 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’ application filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein
the challenge was to quash the Charge Sheet dated 12.06.2018 as well
as the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.2767 of 2018 (State vs.
Arvind & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.79 of 2018 under Sections
498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
“IPC”) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Police Station
Dhampur, District Bijnor, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bijnor.
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. Praveen Swarup,  learned counsel for the appellants.
None appeared for the respondents.
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.
SANGEETA AGRAWAL & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
464                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Single Judge
has only quoted the principles of law laid down by this Court in several
decisions relating to powers of the High Court to interfere in the 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 with a view to
appreciate the factual controversy, such as, what is the nature of the
complaint/FIR filed against the appellants, the al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.