IMPORTANT POINT
High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order – When serious allegations for offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of SC/ST Act were made, High Court ought to have been more cautious and circumspect while considering application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashing criminal proceedings for the offences.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

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 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 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. C-7/2004. 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. 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, non-reasoned one paragraph order, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings which has given rise to the present appeal.

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, non-reasoned 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