REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1541 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9401 of 2018)
Omveer Singh ….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 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
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.12.03
17:00:39 IST
Reason:
Code”) bearing No.36284 of 2017 whereby the
1
Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the
appellant herein.
3. Few facts need mention hereinbelow to
appreciate the short controversy involved in this
appeal.
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
2
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
3
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.
4
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
case.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned
5
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.
……………………………………..J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
……………………………………….J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
6
