LAJPAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

                       [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1107                            1107


                         LAJPAT & ORS.                                  A
                                 v.
             STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2018)
                       DECEMBER 06, 2018                                B
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Application
under, to quash charges under Penal Code – Dismissal of, by the
Single Judge quoting principles of law laid down by this Court
                                                                        C
relating to powers of the High Court to interfere in cases filed u/s.
482 but without mentioning the facts of the case – On appeal held:
Single Judge ought to have first set out the brief facts of the case
with a view to understand 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          D
basis and reasons, a case is made out for any interference or not –
Such disposal of the application by the High Court cannot be
concurred with – Matter remanded to the High Court to decide the
application afresh.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court                                    E
      HELD : 1.1 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 Cr.P.C. but has failed to even refer to the facts of the
case with a view to appreciate the factual controversy, such as,        F
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. Therefore, this Court is at a loss to know
the factual matrix of the case much less to appreciate except to        G
read the legal principles laid down by this Court in several
decisions. [Paras 8, 9][1109-D-F]
      1.2 The Single Judge ought to have first set out the brief
facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix of
                                                                        H
                                1107
1108                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     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. 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
 B
       examine the question as to whether the reasoning given by the
       Court below is factually and legally sustainable. The said exercise
       was not done by the High Court while passing the impugned order
       and hence interference is called for. Such disposal of the
       application by the High Court cannot be concurred with and
 C     impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the
       High Court to decide the application afresh on merits in
       accordance with law. [Paras 10-13][1109-F-H; 1110-A-C]
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
       No. 1569 of 2018.
 D           From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.2018 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 35 of 2017.
             Siddharth Mittal, Adv. for the Appellants.
             Manoj Mishra, Ankit Pandey, Shashank Shekhar Singh Advs. for
 E     the Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
              1. Leave granted.
 F           2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
       10.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in an
       Application No.35 of 2017 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
       Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) whereby the
       Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application filed by the
       appellants herein.
 G
             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
 H     the challenge was to quash Charge Sheet No.1 dated 07.05.2016 in
   LAJPAT & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.                              1109
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

Case Crime No.441 of 2015 under Sections 420, 406 and 504 of the               A
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), P.S. Khair,
District Aligarh in Case No.486 of 2016 (State vs. Lajpat & Ors.)
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh.
      5. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,
is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’          B
application filed under Section 482 of the Code.
       6. Heard Mr. Siddharth Mittal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned counsel was asked to take notice for the
State.
       7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal      C
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      D
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         E
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        F
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
                                                                               G
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
                                                                               H
1110                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A     Higher Court to examine the question as to whether the reasoning given
       by the Court below is factually and legally sustainable.
              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.
 B            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 the aforementioned observations after issuing
 C     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
 D     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 the respondents.

       Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeal allowed.
 E




 F




 G




 H