Apex Court allowed the Appeal preferred by Lady Accused of commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC.

The Single Judge of the High Court had dismissed the appellants’ petition filed under Section 482 of the Code wherein the challenge was to quash the order as well as the entire proceedings in in Complaint Case under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Supreme Court found that the Single Judge had only quoted the principle of law laid down by this Court in several decisions

relating to powers of the High Court on the issue of interference in cases filed under Section 482 of the Code but has failed to even refer to the facts of the case at hand much less in detail to appreciate the factual controversy.

The Single Judge had not mentioned the bare facts of the case with a view to appreciate the factual controversy, such as, what is

the nature of the complaint/FIR filed against the appellants, the allegations on which it is filed, the offences under which appellants prosecution is sought, who filed the complaint/FIR/proceedings, whether it pertains to a cognizable offence or not, the grounds on which the complaint/FIR/ proceedings is challenged, why such grounds are not made out under Section 482 of the Code etc.

The order of the High Court was set aside while observing,

”In our view, the learned Judge ought to have first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix and then examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of the principles of law laid down by this Court to enable him to record the findings as to on what basis and the reasoning, these principles apply to the facts of the case at hand so as to either call for any interference therein or not.

12. Indeed, this is the least that is required in the order in support of the conclusion. It enables the Higher Court to appreciate the facts in its proper perspective and also enable to examine the question as to whether the reasoning given is factually and legally sustainable.

13. We find that the aforementioned exercise was not done by the High Court while passing the impugned order.”