Gopal Govind Lakade vs The State Of Maharashtra

2025 INSC 658 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10483/2024)

GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

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.

Signature Not Verified

1. After hearing the learned advocate for the Digitally signed by NEETU SACHDEVA Date: 2025.05.09 applicants for sometime, we are not inclined even 16:39:35 IST Reason: to issue notice in this matter.

2. Writ petition stands dismissed.”

1

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 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

2 violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as we

are not able to gather any reason as to why the High Court was

not inclined to even issue notice to respondent(s) in the

application filed by the appellant(s) herein seeking quashing

of the FIR registered against the appellant(s).

7. In the circumstances, we have no option but to set aside

the impugned order and restore Criminal Application No.

2439/2023 on the file of the High Court, by remanding the

matter to the High Court with a request to dispose the same on

its own merits and in accordance with law.

8. This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

…………………………………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

…………………………………………………………J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA) NEW DELHI;

MAY 06, 2025.

3 4