Raju @ Raj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1208 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5055 of 2016)

Harish Chand …..Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Smt. Urmila …..Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment

and order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the High

Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B.

Criminal Revision Petition No.196 of 2014 whereby

the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the

Signature Not Verified revision petition filed by the appellant herein for Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.09.20

quashing and setting aside the order dated 16:51:17 IST Reason: 1 17.01.2014 of the Judge, Family Court, Bharatpur in

Application No.352/13.

3. Few facts need to be mentioned infra for the

disposal of this appeal, which involve a short point.

4. The appellant­husband has filed this appeal by

way of special leave against the order whereby the

High Court dismissed his revision petition by passing

the following order:

“I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me including the impugned order passed by the learned court below as also the fact that the petitioner is working as a headmaster/senior teacher in Government school and he is capable to maintain the respondent.”

5. In our view, the Single Judge of the High Court

neither set out the facts nor considered any

submissions of the parties and nor assigned any

reasons and disposed of the revision petition in a

cryptic manner. Indeed, it is clear from a mere

reading of only one para from the impugned order

2 quoted supra which was made the basis for

dismissing the revision petition.

6. In the absence of any facts mentioned,

submissions of both the parties noted, legal

provisions which govern the issue arising in the case

referred and the reasons assigned in the impugned

order by the Single Judge in the context of the

submissions urged, we are unable to know the

factual background of the dispute involved in the

case, the reasoning of the Trial Court which led the

appellant herein to file a revision petition before the

High Court against the order of the Trial Court and

lastly, the reasoning of the High Court for dismissal

of the appellant’s revision petition.

7. We cannot countenance the disposal of the

revision petition by the High Court in such a cryptic

manner and, therefore, decline to concur with such

order.

8. In view of what is observed supra, we do not

wish to go into the issue on merits for the first time

3 in this appeal and consider it proper to set aside the

impugned order and remand the case to the High

Court for deciding the revision petition afresh on

merits strictly in accordance with law keeping in view

our observations made supra.

9. The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly

allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The revision

petition out of which this appeal arises is remanded

to the High Court for its disposal on merits in

accordance with law, as mentioned above, as

expeditiously as possible preferably within six

months as an outer limit.

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

.……...................................J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

New Delhi, September 20, 2018.

4