REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1544  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9651 of 2018)

Geeta & 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 05.09.2018  passed by the  High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application

1

filed under Section 482 of the  Code of  Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Code”) bearing No.29904 of 2018 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’ petition filed

under Section 482 of the Code wherein the

challenge was to quash the order dated 18.06.2018

as well  as the entire proceedings  in  in Complaint

Case  No.  537/2018  under  Section  498­A  of   the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

“IPC”) Police Station Dhanuara, Dist. Amroha, J.P.

Nagar pending in the Court of 2nd  Additional Civil

2

Judge (Junior Division) Judicial Magistrate,

Amroha, JP Nagar.  

5. The short question, which arises for

consideration  in this  appeal, is  whether the  High

Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’

application filed under Section 482 of  the Code.  

6. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned

counsel for the appellants.   None appeared for the

respondents.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants 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.

3

8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that

the Single Judge has only quoted the principle of

law laid  down by this  Court in several  decisions

relating to powers of the High Court on the issue of

interference in cases filed under Section 482 of the

Code from Para 2 to the concluding para but has

failed to even refer to the facts of the case at hand

much less in detail to appreciate the factual

controversy.  

9. In other words, the Single Judge has not

mentioned the bare 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, the

offences under which appellants prosecution is

sought,   who filed the complaint/FIR/proceedings,

4

whether it pertains to a cognizable offence or not,

the grounds on which the complaint/FIR/

proceedings is challenged,  why  such  grounds  are

not made out under Section 482 of the Code etc.  

10. 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.  

11. In our view, the learned Judge ought to have

first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to

understand the factual matrix and then examined

the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of

the  principles of law laid  down  by this  Court to

enable  him  to record the findings  as to  on  what

basis and the reasoning, these principles apply to

5

the facts of the case at hand so as to either call for

any interference therein or not.  

12. Indeed, this is the least that is required in the

order  in support of  the conclusion.  It  enables the

Higher Court to appreciate the  facts  in  its  proper

perspective and also enable to examine the question

as to whether the reasoning given is factually and

legally sustainable.  

13. We find that the aforementioned exercise was

not done by the High Court while passing the

impugned order.  

14.  We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur

with 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

6

law keeping in view aforementioned observations

after issuing notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

15. 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.

16. 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.                        [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi; December 03, 2018  

7