Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Digambar Pathak vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 July, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.7341 OF 2025
DIGAMBAR PATHAK APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal impugns an order of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad1 dated 16.04.2025 passed in
Application under Section 482 No.22327 of 2024 by which
the chargesheet and all proceedings in pursuance
thereof arising out of Case Crime No.312 of 2023, P.S.
Izzatnagar, District Bareilly have been quashed.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the order impugned is a non-speaking
order inasmuch as it does not advert to the allegations
made in the First Information Report2 and the materials
Signature Not Verified
collected during the course of investigation to assess
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.07.17
16:47:13 IST
Reason:
1 1 The High Court
2 2 FIR
1
whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed
against the accused.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, on
16.05.2025, this Court had passed the following order:
“1. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the order impugned,
quashing the First Information Report
(“F.I.R.”) as also the chargesheet and the
proceedings in pursuance thereof, does not
advert to the allegations made in F.I.R. as
also the materials collected during the course
of investigation. It has been submitted that
the order impugned is a non-speaking order.
3. The matter requires consideration.
4. Issue notice. Notice on behalf of respondent
No.2 has been accepted by Mr. Pankaj Bhagat,
Advocate. He prays for and is allowed four
weeks time to file a counter affidavit.
5. List on 15th July, 2025.”
6. Pursuant to the above order, the respondent has
put an appearance.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
if this Court is of the view that the order impugned is
a non-speaking order, it may remit the matter back to
the High Court for adjudication afresh.
8. Having perused the order impugned and considered
the submissions made, we are of the view that the order
passed by the High Court cannot be sustained for the
simple reason that it does not advert to the
allegations made in the FIR and the materials collected
2
by the investigating agency during investigation.
Admittedly, after investigation, a chargesheet was laid
and cognizance was taken by the Court. In such
circumstances, before taking a decision to quash the
proceedings arising from FIR, it was incumbent upon the
High Court, exercising powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to advert to the
allegations and the materials collected during the
course of investigation so as to find out whether a
prima facie case is made out or not to proceed against
the accused. The High Court quashed the proceedings on
the singular ground that there is an arbitration
agreement between the parties where they can resolve
their differences amicably. It is well-settled that
mere existence of an arbitration clause in the contract
between the parties is not a sufficient ground for
quashing the criminal proceedings if the necessary
ingredients of a criminal offence are made out from the
allegations and the materials collected during the
course of investigation or inquiry3. In such
circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the
High Court cannot be sustained. However, since we find
that the High Court has not considered the allegations
in the FIR and the materials collected during the
course of investigation, the matter would have to be
3 3 Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Others, (1999) 8 SCC 686; S.W. Palanitkar & Others v. State of
Bihar and another, (2002) 1 SCC 241
3
remitted back to the High Court for fresh
consideration.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The
order impugned is set aside. Application under Section
482 No.22327 of 2024 is restored on the file of the
High Court and shall be decided afresh in accordance
with law.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………..J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
……………..J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 15, 2025.
4
ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.16 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7341/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-04-2025
in A482 No. 23327/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
DIGAMBAR PATHAK Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 122949/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 15-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Aashi Arora, Adv.
Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Vijay Seth, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR
Mr. Mrigank Mishra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order placed on
the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEHA GUPTA) (SAPNA BANSAL)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
5
[ad_1]
Source link