Satish Kumar Jatav vs The State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Jatav vs The State of U.P.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 770 of 2022 

Satish Kumar Jatav  ...Appellant 

Versus

The State of U.P. & Ors.                         ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T 

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment   and   order   dated   16.09.2019   passed   by   the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.14607 of 2008

by which the High Court has allowed the said application

under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   preferred   by   the   private

respondents herein – original accused and has quashed

the criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.1199 of

1

2005 as well as the summoning order dated 04.02.2008

by which the learned Magistrate summoned the original

accused   to   face   the   trial   for   the   offences   punishable

under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code

(for   short,   ‘the   IPC’)   and   Section   3(10)(15)   of   the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the

original   complainant/informant   has   preferred   the

present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are

as under:

That   the   appellant   herein   initially   filed   an

application   under   Section   156(3)   Cr.P.C.   against   the

accused   persons   for   the   incident   which   occurred   on

11.09.2004, as the local police of Police Station Inchauli,

District Meerut did not lodge the FIR.   Thereafter the

learned Magistrate passed an order dated 04.10.2004 in

Misc.   Application   No.390/11   of   2004   directing   the

Station House Officer, Police Station Inchauli, District

Meerut to lodge the FIR against the accused persons for

2

the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of

the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act.  That pursuant

to   the   order   dated   04.10.2004,   a   First   Information

Report   bearing   Criminal   Case   No.7   of   2004   for   the

aforesaid   offences   was   registered.     The   Investigating

Officer submitted the closure report.   According to the

complainant the local police station was colluding with

the   accused   and   he   was   doubtful   about   a   fair

investigation   and   therefore,   the   complainant   filed

another   Criminal   Complaint   Case   No.2365   of   2004

against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2.1 That   the   learned   Magistrate   issued   notice   to   the

complainant   after   receiving   the   final   report   by   the

Investigating   Officer   of   Crime   No.C­7/2004.     The

complainant filed the Protest Petition against the final

report.   The learned Magistrate passed an order dated

21.07.2005 rejecting the final report.   The proceedings

arising from the police final report was merged into the

proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.2365 of 2004

pending   before   the   court   of   Learned   Special   C.J.M.

3

Meerut.   The learned Magistrate directed for recording

the   statement   under   Section   161   Cr.P.C.     The

complainant recorded his statement under Section 200

Cr.P.C.  So also, the statement of other witnesses PW1 to

PW7   were   recorded   under   Section   202   Cr.P.C.     The

injury report of the complainant was also brought on

record.     All   the   witnesses   supported   the   prosecution

case.     Thereafter   the   learned   Magistrate   passed   a

reasoned and detailed order vide order dated 04.02.2008

and directed to issue summons to the accused to face

the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307,

504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act.

2.2 Being   aggrieved   the   respondents   ­   original   accused

approached the High Court by way of Criminal Misc.

Application No.14607 of 2008 and prayed to quash the

criminal   proceedings   in   exercise   of   the   powers   under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.   By the impugned judgment and a

cryptic,   non­reasoned   one   paragraph   order,   the   High

Court has quashed the criminal proceedings which has

given rise to the present appeal.

4

3. Shri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the original complainant has vehemently submitted that

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court   quashing   the   criminal   proceedings   against   the

accused is a cryptic, non­reasoned order.  It is submitted

that as such, after narrating the submissions on behalf

of   the   accused,   there   is   no   further   independent

application of mind by the High Court and no reasons

whatsoever   have   been   assigned   while   quashing   the

criminal proceedings.

3.1 It is submitted that when the learned Magistrate after

due application of mind and considering the statements

recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after

considering the material on record including the injury

report had directed to issue summons upon the accused

to   face   the   trial,   the   same   was   not   required   to   be

interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has

adopted   the   submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the

complainant.

5. Shri Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing

on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein ­ original

accused   has   supported   the   impugned   judgment   and

order passed by the High Court.  It is submitted that in

the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   and   after

considering the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and thereafter when the High Court has

quashed the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers

under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.,   the   same   may   not   be

interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

6. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the

respective parties at length.  We have gone through and

perused   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Magistrate

summoning   the   accused   for   the   offences   punishable

under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section

6

3(10)(15) of the Act.   We have also gone through and

perused   and   considered   the   impugned   judgment   and

order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal

proceedings against the accused persons in exercise of

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the

same is unsustainable both in law as well as on facts.

After narrating the submissions made by the counsel

appearing for the parties, we find that there is no further

discussion by the High Court on the allegations made

against the accused persons and even on the legality and

validity   of   the   order   passed   by   the   Magistrate

summoning the accused.  The impugned judgment and

order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   a   cryptic,   nonreasoned order.   After recording the submissions made

by   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   and   thereafter   by

passing   one   paragraph   order   without   assigning   any

further   reasons,   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the

7

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed

the criminal proceedings.  The one paragraph order after

narrating the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties reads as under:

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case,   as   noted   hereinabove,   and   also   the

submissions   made   by   the   counsel   for   the

parties, the court is of the considered opinion

that   no   useful   purpose   shall   be   served   by

prolonging   the   proceedings   of   the   above

mentioned case.”

6.2 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the impugned

judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   a

cryptic, non­speaking order.   We find no independent

application of mind by the High Court on the legality and

validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate

summoning the accused.  The learned 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.     The

manner in which the High Court has disposed of the

8

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the

criminal   proceedings   is   not   appreciated   at   all.     In   a

catena of decisions, this Court has emphasized that the

High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order in

such matters.

6.3 Even from the impugned order passed by the High Court

it appears that while quashing the criminal proceedings,

the High Court has 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.

6.4 The High Court has not at all observed on how the order

passed   by   the   learned   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

9

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 Cr.P.C.

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.

7. In view of the above and for the reason stated above

present appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and

order   passed   by   the   High   Court   under   Section   482

Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Application No.14607 of 2008

is hereby quashed and set aside.  The order passed by

the learned Magistrate summoning the accused is hereby

restored.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed.

…………………………………J.

             (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J.

                                                  (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi, 

May 17, 2022.

10