GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

          [2025] 6 S.C.R. 307 : 2025 INSC 658

             Gopal Govind Lakade & Anr.
                           v.
            The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 2483 of 2025)
                          06 May 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the
High Court dismissing the application of the appellants seeking
quashing of the complaint, and that too without issuing notice to
respondents.

                           Headnotes†
Notices/Processes – Non-issuance of, by the court – Violation
of natural justice – Criminal application by the appellants
seeking quashing of complaint filed against them – High Court
dismissed the application, and was not even inclined to issue
notice to the respondents – Correctness:
Held: If the Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined
to even issue notice to the respondents, then reasons ought
to have been assigned for that purpose, or in the alternative,
notice should have been issued to the respondents and after
giving a fair opportunity to both sides, dismissed the complaint
on merits – In the absence of any of the options being exercised
by the Division Bench of the High Court, impugned order is in
violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no reason
can be gathered as to why the High Court was not inclined to
even issue notice to respondents in the application filed by the
appellants seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the
appellants – Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to
the High Court. [Paras 6, 7]

                        List of Keywords
Quashing of complaint; Notice; Fair opportunity; Violation of
principles of natural justice.
308                                                           [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                             Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       2483 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2023 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRA No. 2439 of 2023

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Ashok Kumar Gupta Ii.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Varad Kilor, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

       Leave granted.
2.     Respondent no.2 has been served. However, there is no representation
       on behalf of respondent no.2. In the circumstances, we have heard
       learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the
       respondent/State.
3.     Learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) drew our attention to
       the impugned order. For immediate reference, the impugned order
       dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
       Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal Application No. 2439/2023
       is extracted as under -
                                     “P.C.
            1. After hearing the learned advocate for the applicants
            for sometime, we are not inclined even to issue notice in
            this matter.
            2. Writ petition stands dismissed.”
4.     Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that there has been
       no consideration of the case of the appellant(s) by the Division Bench
       of the High Court. The High Court was not even inclined to issue
       notice to the respondent(s) in the application filed by the appellant(s)
       herein; that there is a civil dispute between the appellant(s) and
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                      309

     Gopal Govind Lakade & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.


     respondent no.2 which has been given a criminal colour and an FIR
     has been lodged against the appellant(s) herein which was sought
     to be quashed. There being no reason whatsoever for dismissing
     the complaint, let alone declining to even issue notice, the impugned
     order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the
     High Court.
5.   Learned counsel for the respondent(s)/State submitted that
     appropriate orders may be made in this appeal having regard to the
     nature and tenor of the impugned order.
6.   We find that the appellant(s) herein had filed a criminal application
     seeking quashing of the complaint filed against the appellant(s).
     If the Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined to even
     issue notice to the respondent(s), then reasons ought to have been
     assigned for that purpose, or in the alternative, notice should have
     been issued to the respondent(s) and after giving a fair opportunity
     to both sides, dismissed the complaint on merits. In the absence of
     any of the aforesaid options being exercised by the Division Bench
     of the High Court, we find that the impugned order is in violation
     of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as we are not able to
     gather any reason as to why the High Court was not inclined to
     even issue notice to respondent(s) in the application filed by the
     appellant(s) herein seeking quashing of the FIR registered against
     the appellant(s).
7.   In the circumstances, we have no option but to set aside the impugned
     order and restore Criminal Application No. 2439/2023 on the file of
     the High Court, by remanding the matter to the High Court with a
     request to dispose the same on its own merits and in accordance
     with law.
8.   This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

     Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain