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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर