Satish Kumar Jatav vs State Of U.P.

Satish Kumar Jatav ...Appellant

Versus

The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

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 Misc.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.14607 of 2008

by which the High Court has allowed the said application

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by the private Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

respondents herein – original accused and has quashed SWETA BALODI Date: 2022.05.17 16:47:09 IST Reason:

the criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1199 of

1 2005 as well as the summoning order dated 04.02.2008

by which the learned Magistrate summoned the original

accused to face the trial for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code

(for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 3(10)(15) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the

original complainant/informant has preferred the

present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are

as under:

That the appellant herein initially filed an

application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the

accused persons for the incident which occurred on

11.09.2004, as the local police of Police Station Inchauli,

District Meerut did not lodge the FIR. Thereafter the

learned Magistrate passed an order dated 04.10.2004 in

Misc. Application No.390/11 of 2004 directing the

Station House Officer, Police Station Inchauli, District

Meerut to lodge the FIR against the accused persons for

2 the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of

the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act. That pursuant

to the order dated 04.10.2004, a First Information

Report bearing Criminal Case No.7 of 2004 for the

aforesaid offences was registered. The Investigating

Officer submitted the closure report. According to the

complainant the local police station was colluding with

the accused and he was doubtful about a fair

investigation and therefore, the complainant filed

another Criminal Complaint Case No.2365 of 2004

against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2.1 That the learned Magistrate issued notice to the

complainant after receiving the final report by the

Investigating Officer of Crime No.C­7/2004. The

complainant filed the Protest Petition against the final

report. The learned Magistrate passed an order dated

21.07.2005 rejecting the final report. The proceedings

arising from the police final report was merged into the

proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.2365 of 2004

pending before the court of Learned Special C.J.M.

3 Meerut. The learned Magistrate directed for recording

the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The

complainant recorded his statement under Section 200

Cr.P.C. So also, the statement of other witnesses PW1 to

PW7 were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The

injury report of the complainant was also brought on

record. All the witnesses supported the prosecution

case. Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed a

reasoned and detailed order vide order dated 04.02.2008

and directed to issue summons to the accused to face

the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307,

504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act.

2.2 Being aggrieved the respondents ­ original accused

approached the High Court by way of Criminal Misc.

Application No.14607 of 2008 and prayed to quash the

criminal proceedings in exercise of the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment and a

cryptic, non­reasoned one paragraph order, the High

Court has quashed the criminal proceedings which has

given rise to the present appeal.

4

3. Shri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the original complainant has vehemently submitted that

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the

accused is a cryptic, non­reasoned order. It is submitted

that as such, after narrating the submissions on behalf

of the accused, there is no further independent

application of mind by the High Court and no reasons

whatsoever have been assigned while quashing the

criminal proceedings.

3.1 It is submitted that when the learned Magistrate after

due application of mind and considering the statements

recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after

considering the material on record including the injury

report had directed to issue summons upon the accused

to face the trial, the same was not required to be

interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has

adopted the submissions made on behalf of the

complainant.

5. Shri Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing

on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein ­ original

accused has supported the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court. It is submitted that in

the facts and circumstances of the case and after

considering the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and thereafter when the High Court has

quashed the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same may not be

interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties at length. We have gone through and

perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate

summoning the accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section

6 3(10)(15) of the Act. We have also gone through and

perused and considered the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal

proceedings against the accused persons in exercise of

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the

same is unsustainable both in law as well as on facts.

After narrating the submissions made by the counsel

appearing for the parties, we find that there is no further

discussion by the High Court on the allegations made

against the accused persons and even on the legality and

validity of the order passed by the Magistrate

summoning the accused. The impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court is a cryptic, non­

reasoned order. After recording the submissions made

by learned counsel for the parties, and thereafter by

passing one paragraph order without assigning any

further reasons, the High Court has allowed the

7 application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed

the criminal proceedings. The one paragraph order after

narrating the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties reads as under:

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted hereinabove, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.”

6.2 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court is a

cryptic, non­speaking order. We find no independent

application of mind by the High Court on the legality and

validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate

summoning the accused. The learned Magistrate issued

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. The

manner in which the High Court has disposed of the

8 application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the

criminal proceedings is not appreciated at all. In a

catena of decisions, this Court has emphasized that the

High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order in

such matters.

6.3 Even from the impugned order passed by the High Court

it appears that while quashing the criminal proceedings,

the High Court has 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.

6.4 The High Court has not at all observed on how the order

passed by the learned 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

9 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 Cr.P.C.

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.

7. In view of the above and for the reason stated above

present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Application No.14607 of 2008

is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by

the learned Magistrate summoning the accused is hereby

restored.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi, May 17, 2022.

10