/2022  INSC 0387/
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,   non­
reasoned   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