Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Legality of – Magistrate summoned the private respondents-accused for offences punishable u/ss.307, 504,
506 of IPC and s.3(10)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – High Court allowed application u/s.482 CrPC preferred by the private respondents–accused and quashed the criminal proceedings as well as summoning order of the Magistrate – Challenge to – Held: The order passed by the High Court was a cryptic, non-speaking order – There was no independent application of mind by the High Court on the legality and validity of the order passed by the Magistrate – While quashing the criminal proceedings, the High Court observed that no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case – The aforesaid cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offences alleged – The cursory and casual manner in which the High Court disposed of the application u/s.482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings is deprecated – Judgment of High Court is unsustainable both on facts as well as in law – Order passed by Magistrate summoning the accused, accordingly, restored – IPC – ss.307, 504 and 506 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – s.3(10)(15). Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order in such matters. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is however a cryptic, nonspeaking order. There is no independent application of mind by the High Court on the legality and validity of the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused. The Magistrate issued the summons against the accused after considering the statements of the complainant as well as the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidence on record including the injury certificate. The same has been set aside by the High Court in a most cursory and casual manner. [Para 6.2][274-H; 275-A-B]
2. Even from the impugned order passed by the High Court it appears that while quashing the criminal proceedings, the High Court observed that no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case. The aforesaid cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offences alleged. [Para 6.3][275-C-D]
3. The High Court has not at all observed on how the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused was wrong and/or erroneous. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed the criminal proceedings is deprecated. When serious allegations for the offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act were made, the High Court ought to have been more cautious and circumspect while considering the application under Section 482 CrPC and quashing the criminal proceedings for the aforesaid offences. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both on facts as well as in law. The order passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused is hereby restored. [Paras 6.4 and 7][275-D-G]
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.