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)
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
Signature Not Verified and order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the High
Digitally signed by
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application
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
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
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
December 03, 2018