Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of proceedings – Complaint filed under s.498A IPC – Application for quashing the proceedings filed under s.482 dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: High Court did not mention the bare facts of the case with a view to appreciate the factual controversy, such as, what was the nature of the complaint/FIR filed against the appellants, the allegations on which it was filed, the offences under which appellants prosecution was sought, who filed the complaint/FIR/proceedings, whether it pertained to a cognizable offence or not, the grounds on which the complaint/FIR/ proceedings was challenged, why such grounds were not made out under s.482 of the Code etc. – High Court 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 to record the findings as to on what basis and the reasoning, these principles apply to the facts of the case at hand so as to either call for any interference therein or not – Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A. Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD : A perusal of the impugned order, showed that the Single Judge has only quoted the principle 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 but has failed to even refer to the facts of the case at hand much less in detail to appreciate the factual controversy. The 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 to enable him to record the findings as to on what basis and the reasoning, these principles apply to the facts of the case at hand so as to either call for any interference therein or not. Indeed, this is the least that is required in the order in support of the conclusion. It enables the Higher Court to appreciate the facts in its proper perspective and also enable to examine the question as to whether the reasoning given is factually and legally sustainable. This exercise was not done by the High Court while passing the impugned order. [Paras 8, 11-13][468-C-D, F-H; 469-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.