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