In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.770 of 2022-SC-High Court ought to be more cautious while considering application u/s 482 CrPC when serious allegations are made, says Top Court while quashing Allahabad HC’s order Justices M.R.Shah & B.V.Nagarathna [17-05-2022]

Read Judgment: Satish Kumar Jatav v. The State of U.P. & Ors 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi,  May 18, 2022: Deprecating the manner in which the Allahabad High Court had disposed of the application under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code & SC/ST Act, the Apex Court has held that the High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order in such matters.

The Division Bench of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice B.V.Nagarathna did not appreciate the manner in which the High Court had quashed the criminal proceedings and asserted, “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 Cr.P.C. and quashing the criminal proceedings for the aforesaid offences.”

The facts of this case were such that the appellant herein initially filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused persons as the local police did not lodge the FIR. Thereafter the Magistrate passed an order directing the SHO to lodge the FIR against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the SC/ST Act.  As per the complainant, the local police station was colluding with the accused and so, the complainant filed another Criminal Complaint Case. After the proceedings were conducted, the Magistrate directed to issue summons to the accused to face the trial. Being aggrieved, the respondents – original accused approached the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings and the High Court quashed the same by passing a a cryptic, non-reasoned one paragraph order. This gave rise to the present appeal.

Holding that the order passed by the High Court was unsustainable both in law as well as on facts, the Bench did not find any 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 CrPC and after considering the evidence on record including the injury certificate. The same had been set aside by the High Court in a most cursory and casual manner, added the Bench. 

According to the Top Court, the High Court’s reasoning saying that no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case, was not a good ground to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the alleged offences. Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and restored the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused.