PANKAJ GARG Vs MEENU GARG
Bench: H.L. DATTU,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000303-000303 / 2013
Diary number: 9645 / 2012
Advocates: ABHISHEK GUPTA Vs
PRAGATI NEEKHRA
Page 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 303 OF 2013
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.2500 OF 2012)
PANKAJ GARG ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
MEENU GARG & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1374 of
2010, dated 21.02.2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court has reversed the findings and the conclusions reached by
the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate,
in the order dated 19.02.2008, as well as by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, in the order dated 06.07.2010.
3. The facts in nutshell are: The appellant and the
respondent no.1 are husband and wife. The respondent no.1 has
lodged a complaint against the appellant-accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (“the IPC” for short). The learned Additional Civil Judge
(J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, after analyzing the evidence on
record, has come to the conclusion that the complaint and the
evidence adduced by the parties does not constitute the offences
Page 2
: 2 :
punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC. Accordingly, it
has dismissed the complaint by order dated 19.02.2008.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Complainant
had filed a Revision Petition before the learned District and
Sessions Judge. The said Petition was dismissed by the Revisional
Court confirming the findings of the Trial Court by order dated
06.07.2010. The said order was called in question by the
Complainant before the High Court by filing S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No. 1374 of 2010, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. The High Court, after noticing the facts in extenso, has
set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as by the
Revisional Court and has remanded the matter to the Trial Court for
fresh disposal in accordance with law by a cryptic order, dated
21.02.2012. It is the correctness of otherwise of this order which
is called in question by the appellant-accused in this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis
and also carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the
High Court. To say the least, the order passed by the High Court is
a non-speaking order. It is a settled position of law that an order
which does not contain any reason is no order in the eye of law.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order requires to be set aside
Page 3
: 3 :
and the matter requires to be remanded to the High Court for fresh
disposal in accordance with law.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and
order passed by the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded
to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after
affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 12, 2013