SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sangeeta Agrawal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 3 December, 2018




(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9650 of 2018)

Sangeeta Agrawal  Ors.            ….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

Signature Not Verified and   order   dated   12.09.2018   passed   by   the   High
Digitally signed by
Date: 2018.12.03

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application
17:00:31 IST

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

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


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

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

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


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

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





                       [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