SATISH KUMAR JATAV versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 17-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 270
270
SATISH KUMAR JATAV
v.
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 770 of 2022)
MAY 17, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of
criminal proceedings – Legality of – Magistrate summoned the
private respondents-accused for offences punishable u/ss.307, 504,
506 of IPC and s.3(10)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – High Court allowed application
u/s.482 CrPC preferred by the private respondents–accused and
quashed the criminal proceedings as well as summoning order of
the Magistrate – Challenge to – Held: The order passed by the
High Court was a cryptic, non-speaking order – There was no
independent application of mind by the High Court on the legality
and validity of the order passed by the Magistrate – While quashing
the criminal proceedings, the High Court observed that no useful
purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case –
The aforesaid cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to
quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out
for the offences alleged – The cursory and casual manner in which
the High Court disposed of the application u/s.482 CrPC and
quashed the criminal proceedings is deprecated – Judgment of High
Court is unsustainable both on facts as well as in law – Order passed
by Magistrate summoning the accused, accordingly, restored – IPC
– ss.307, 504 and 506 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act – s.3(10)(15).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has
emphasized that the High Court must pass a speaking and
reasoned order in such matters. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is however a cryptic, non-
speaking order. There is no independent application of mind by
the High Court on the legality and validity of the order passed by
the Magistrate summoning the accused. The Magistrate issued
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
the summons against the accused after considering the statements
of the complainant as well as the witnesses recorded under
Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidence
on record including the injury certificate. The same has been set
aside by the High Court in a most cursory and casual manner.
[Para 6.2][274-H; 275-A-B]
2. Even from the impugned order passed by the High Court
it appears that while quashing the criminal proceedings, the High
Court observed that no useful purpose will be served by
prolonging the proceedings of the case. The aforesaid cannot be
a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal
proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offences
alleged. [Para 6.3][275-C-D]
3. The High Court has not at all observed on how the order
passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused was wrong and/
or erroneous. The manner in which the High Court has disposed
of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed the
criminal proceedings is deprecated. When serious allegations for
the offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section
3(10)(15) of the Act were made, the High Court ought to have
been more cautious and circumspect while considering the
application under Section 482 CrPC and quashing the criminal
proceedings for the aforesaid offences. Under the circumstances,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable both on facts as well as in law. The order passed by
the Magistrate summoning the accused is hereby restored.
[Paras 6.4 and 7][275-D-G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.770 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.)
No.14607 of 2008.
Sudhir Dixit, Vishal Prasad, Utkarsh Dixit, Ms. Ritika Sethi, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Vinod Diwakar, AAG, Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., Sarvesh Singh
Baghel, Garvesh Kabra, B. N. Dubey, Akshay Saxena, Ms. Divya Bhalla,
SATISH KUMAR JATAV v. THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Abhishek Chauhan, Tushar Jarwal, Kunal Dutt, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi
Menon, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Criminal M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.