REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1543  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9650 of 2018)

Sangeeta Agrawal & 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 12.09.2018  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.31729 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’ application

filed  under  Section  482  of the  Code  wherein the

challenge was to quash the Charge Sheet dated

12.06.2018 as well as the entire criminal

proceedings of Case No.2767 of 2018 (State  vs.

Arvind & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.79 of

2018 under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)

and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

2

Police Station  Dhampur, District Bijnor, pending

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor.  

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. Praveen Swarup,  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.

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

the Single Judge has only quoted the principles of

3

law laid  down by this  Court in several  decisions

relating to powers of the High Court to interfere in

the 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 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,  who

filed it, the grounds on which the

complaint/FIR/proceedings is challenged by the

appellants,  why such grounds are not  made out

under Section 482 of the Code etc.

9. 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.  

10. In our view,  the Single  Judge ought  to have

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

4

understand the factual matrix of the case and then

examined the challenge made to the proceedings in

the light of the principles of law laid down by this

Court and then recorded his finding as to on what

basis and reasons, a case is  made out for any

interference or not.  

11. In our view, this is the least that is required in

every order to support the conclusion reached for

disposal of the case. It enables the Higher Court to

examine the question as to whether the reasoning

given  by the  Court  below is factually and legally

sustainable.  

12. We find that the aforementioned exercise was

not done by the High Court while passing the

impugned order and hence interference is called for.

13.  We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur

with such disposal  of the application by the High

Court and feel  inclined to set aside the impugned

5

order and remand the case to the High Court (Single

Judge) with a request to decide the application

afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in

view aforementioned observations after issuing

notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

14. Having formed an opinion to remand the case

in the light of our reasoning, we do not consider it

proper to go into the merits of the case.

15. 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 after notice to

respondents.   

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

                                  …...……..................................J.                        [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi; December 03, 2018  

6