2019 INSC 0014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.21   OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(CRL.) No. 10570 of 2018)
Monu ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of U.P. & Anr.        ….Respondent(s)
                 
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  
1. Leave granted.
2. This   appeal   is  filed  against   the  final   judgment
and   order   dated   29.10.2018   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   an   Application
filed   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal
Procedure,   1973   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the
Code”)   bearing   No.   33965   of   2018   whereby   the
1

Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   dismissed   the
application filed by the appellant herein.
3. Few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   to
appreciate   the   short   controversy   involved   in   this
appeal.
4. By   impugned   order,   the   Single   Judge
dismissed   the   appellant’s   application   filed   under
Section   482   of  the   Code  wherein  the  challenge   was
to set aside the charge sheet dated 18.09.2015 and
22.09.2017   framed   by   the   Additional   Sessions
Judge/Fast   Track,   Court   No.3,   Muzaffarnagar
arising   out   of  Sessions   Trial   No.798  of  2017,   State
vs. Monu   under Sections 420, 498A, 323, 376, 506
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to   as   “IPC”)   and   Sections   3   and   4   of   the   Dowry
Prohibition   Act,   1961,     Police   Station­   Mahila
Thana, District­Muzaffarnagar.  
5. The   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration   in   this   appeal,   is   whether   the   High
2

Court   was   justified   in   dismissing   the   appellant’s
application filed under Section 482 of the Code. 
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
7. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case,  we
are constrained to set aside the impugned order and
remand the case to the High Court for deciding the
appellant’s   application,   out   of   which   this   appeal
arises, afresh on merits in accordance with law.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that
the   Single   Judge   dismissed   the   application   by
passing the following order:
“ I have gone through the impugned order and
I  find  that  there  is  no  illegality  or  perversity
either   in   the   eye   of   law.     I   do   not   find   any
good   ground   to   interfere   with   the   order
impugned.”
9. We   are   unable   to   know   much   less   to
appreciate  even   the  factual   matrix   of  the   case   after
reading the impugned judgment. 
3

10. In   our   view,   the   Single   Judge   ought   to   have
first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to
understand   the   factual   matrix   and   then   should
have   examined   the   challenge   made   to   the
proceedings in the light of the principles of law laid
down by this Court on the question involved with a
view to record the findings on the grounds urged by
the   appellant   as   to   whether   any   case   for
interference therein is made out or not. 
11. We   find   that   the   aforementioned   exercise   was
not   done   by   the   High   Court   while   passing   an
unreasoned   impugned   order,   which   does   not
disclose any application of mind to the case. 
12.  We, therefore, find ourselves unable to concur
with  such  casual  disposal   of  the  application   by  the
High   Court   and   feel   inclined   to   set   aside   the
impugned   order   and   remand   the   case   to   the   High
Court   (Single   Judge)   with   a   request   to   decide   the
4

application afresh on merits in accordance with law
keeping in view the aforementioned observations.
13. Having   formed   an  opinion   to   remand  the   case
in the light of our reasoning mentioned above, we do
not   consider   it   proper   to   go   into   the   merits   of   the
case.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds   and   is   accordingly   allowed.   Impugned
order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High
Court for its decision on merits uninfluenced by any
of our observations in this order.  
       
                                      .………...................................J.
                                    [ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ]     
                                
     … ...……..................................J.
             [R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi;
January 07, 2019
5