Lajpat vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1569 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 10034 of 2018)

Lajpat & Ors. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.12.07 14:54:06 IST Reason:

No.35 of 2017 filed under Section 482 of the Code of

1 Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Code”) 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 Charge Sheet No.1 dated

07.05.2016 in Case Crime No.441 of 2015 under

Sections 420, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), P.S.

Khair, District Aligarh in Case No.486 of 2016

(State vs. Lajpat & Ors.) pending in the Court of

Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh.

5. The short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the High

2 Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’

application filed under Section 482 of the Code.

6. Heard Mr. Siddharth Mittal, learned counsel

for the appellants. Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned

counsel was asked to take notice for the State.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties 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.

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

3 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 allegations on which it is filed, who

filed it, the grounds on which the

complaint/FIR/proceedings is challenged by the

appellants, why such grounds are not made out

under Section 482 of the Code etc.

9. We are, therefore, at a loss to know the factual

matrix of the case much less to appreciate except to

read the legal principles laid down by this Court in

several decisions.

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 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

4 basis and reasons, a case is made out for any

interference or not.

11. In our view, 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.

12. We find that the aforementioned exercise was

not done by the High Court while passing the

impugned order and hence interference is called for.

13. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur

with such disposal of the application by the High

Court and feel inclined to set aside the impugned

order and remand the case to the High Court (Single

Judge) with a request to decide the application

afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in

5 view the aforementioned observations after issuing

notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

14. Having formed an opinion to remand the case

in the light of our reasoning, we do not consider it

proper to go into the merits of the case.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned

order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High

Court for its decision on merits uninfluenced by any

of our observations in this order after notice to the

respondents.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J. [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi;

December 06, 2018

6