SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Omveer Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 3 December, 2018




(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9401 of 2018)

Omveer Singh            ….Appellant(s)


State of Uttar Pradesh  Anr.    ….Respondent(s)  


Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and   order   dated   13.09.2018   passed   by   the   High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application

filed   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
Signature Not Verified

Procedure,   1973   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
Digitally signed by
Date: 2018.12.03
17:00:39 IST

Code”)   bearing   No.36284   of   2017   whereby   the

Single Judge 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   quash   the   order   dated   21/09/2017   as   well   as

entire   proceedings   in   Complaint   Case   No.2540   of

2017   (Mamta  vs.  Jagdish   Prasad     Ors.)   under

Sections 498A, 323, 376 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 Thana, District Hathras pending in

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. 

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 Mr. Rakesh Taneja, learned counsel for

the   appellant   and   Mr.   Chandra   Shekhar,   learned

counsel for the respondents. 

7. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the

parties 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

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   has  quoted the  principles 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

not referred to the facts of the case to appreciate the

controversy of the case. 

9. We are, therefore, unable to know the factual

matrix   of   the   case   after   reading   the   impugned

judgment   except   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

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 with a

view to record the findings on the grounds urged by

the appellant as to whether any interference therein

is called for or not. 

11. We find that the aforementioned exercise was

not   done   by   the   High   Court   while   passing   the

impugned order.


12.  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

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.  




                       [INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;

December 03, 2018 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation