Monu vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.21 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(CRL.) No. 10570 of 2018)

Monu ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of U.P. & Anr. ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.01.07 17:40:04 IST Reason:

Code”) bearing No. 33965 of 2018 whereby the

1 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, District­Muzaffarnagar.

5. The short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the High

2 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:

“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.

3

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 Court while passing an

unreasoned impugned order, which does not

disclose any application of mind to the case.

12. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur

with such casual 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

4 application afresh on merits in accordance with law

keeping in view the aforementioned observations.

13. Having formed an opinion to remand the case

in the light of our reasoning mentioned above, we do

not consider it proper to go into the merits of the

case.

14. 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.

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

…...……..................................J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi;

January 07, 2019

5