IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.21 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(CRL.) No. 10570 of 2018)
State of U.P. Anr. ….Respondent(s)
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Code”) bearing No. 33965 of 2018 whereby the
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
application filed by the appellant herein.
3. Few facts need mention hereinbelow to
appreciate the short controversy involved in this
4. By impugned order, the Single Judge
dismissed the appellant’s application filed under
Section 482 of the Code wherein the challenge was
to set aside the charge sheet dated 18.09.2015 and
22.09.2017 framed by the Additional Sessions
Judge/Fast Track, Court No.3, Muzaffarnagar
arising out of Sessions Trial No.798 of 2017, State
vs. Monu under Sections 420, 498A, 323, 376, 506
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila
5. The short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s
application filed under Section 482 of the Code.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are constrained to set aside the impugned order and
remand the case to the High Court for deciding the
appellant’s application, out of which this appeal
arises, afresh on merits in accordance with law.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that
the Single Judge dismissed the application by
passing the following order:
“I have gone through the impugned order and
I find that there is no illegality or perversity
either in the eye of law. I do not find any
good ground to interfere with the order
9. We are unable to know much less to
appreciate even the factual matrix of the case after
reading the impugned judgment.
10. In our view, the Single Judge ought to have
first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to
understand the factual matrix and then should
have examined the challenge made to the
proceedings in the light of the principles of law laid
down by this Court on the question involved with a
view to record the findings on the grounds urged by
the appellant as to whether any case for
interference therein is made out or not.
11. We find that the aforementioned exercise was
not done by the High Court while passing an
unreasoned impugned order, which does not
disclose any application of mind to the case.
12. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur
with such casual disposal of the application by 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 law
keeping in view the aforementioned observations.
13. 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
14. 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.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
January 07, 2019