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 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 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
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, 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 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 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 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 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]
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.