The Supreme court ruled that “No useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case”, cannot be good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings.
The appellant initially filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused persons for the incident, as the local police of Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut did not lodge the FIR. Thereafter the Magistrate passed an order in Misc. Application directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut 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 Act. That pursuant to the order, a First Information Report 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 against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
Advocate Sudhir Dixit, 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, non reasoned order.
He 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.
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing on behalf of the respondent original accused, has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
He contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the submissions made by 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 the Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The division bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna found 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 court said that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is a cryptic, non reasoned order. After recording the submissions made by counsel for the parties, and thereafter by passing one paragraph order without assigning any further reasons, the High Court has allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has quashed the criminal proceedings.
The court found no independent application of mind by the High Court on the legality and validity of the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the accused and noted that 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 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 court said that the High Court has not at all observed how the order passed by the 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.
The court further stated that 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.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C..
Case title: Satish Kumar Jatav v/s The State of U.P. & Ors.
Citation: Criminal appeal no. 770 of 2022