1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 1436  OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5646/2007]

SHAMINDER SINGH ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order  dated  13.3.2007  passed  by  a  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of

Judicature  at  Allahabad  in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  Application  No.  5156/2007,

whereby and  whereunder  the  application filed by

      ..2/-

2

the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was disposed of

directing:  

“The  482 application  is  disposed  of  by  providing  that  in  case  th

applicant appears or is produced before the courts concerned and

applies for bail  in Complaint Case No. 111 of 2004 under section

323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Edmadadaulla, Distt. Agra, his bail prayer

shall be dealt with as per the seven Judges' decision of this Court

dated 15.10.2004 passed in Criminal Misc. Application N. 2154 of

1995 (Smt. Amarwad and another vs. State of U.P.) reported in 2004

(57) ALR 390.

The non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept

in abeyance for fifteen days only.”

In view of the order proposed to be passed by us we feel it necessary to dwell

upon the factual matrix of the matter.  

Appellant was working as Senior Divisional, Signal and

..3/-

3

Telecom Engineer in the Northern Railways. An incident is said to have occurred in

his chamber on 27.5.2002 at about 11.00 a.m..  Allegedly, respondent No.2 was handed

over to the Railway Protection Force Staff posted there. Another incident is said to

have  taken  place  in  the  office  of  Inspector  K.K.  Sharma and  ASI  Prem Kumar.

Respondent No.2 is said to have handed over to the Delhi Police. However, no First

Information Report was lodged.   

On 29.5.2002, the appellant having come to know that the RPF Staff have

handed over the respondent No.2 to the Delhi  Police,  wrote a letter to the Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, to let him know as to whether any action had

been taken on the First Information Report lodged by the RPF officers, so as to enable

him to initiate departmental proceeding against him.   

..4/-

Respondent No.2 thereafter lodged a First Information Report at about 2100

hours on 29.5.2002 alleging that the appellant along with Inspector K.K. Sharma and

Prem Kumar of RPF attacked him with a `danda' and threatened to kill him.

4

A final report therein was submitted by the Agra Police which was accepted

by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. However, a criminal revision

application was filed by the respondent No.2 which was allowed by an order dated

28.1.2004 directing the learned Magistrate for giving an opportunity to respondent

No.2  to  adduce  evidence  in  support  of  his  protest  petition.  Pursuant  to  and/or  in

furtherance of the said direction, the protest petition was taken on record and the

respondent  No.2  was  permitted  to  examine  the  witnesses,  whereafter  cognizance

under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. was taken.  

According to the appellant, he was not aware of the proceedings initiated

against him or the summons issued by the learned Magistrate.   He came to know

thereabout only when non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued.  

..5/-

He filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.  

It is evident that the appellant's application  was not disposed of on merit

and no reason has been assigned as to why no case for exercise of the High Court's

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been made out.   

Keeping  in  view  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case,  we  are  of  the

opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned order is set aside

5

and the High Court is requested to consider the appellant's application under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. on its own merit.  We direct accordingly.  The appeal is allowed.

As  Respondent  No.2  is  appearing  in-person,  we  would  request  the  High

Court to hear out the case on a specified date and dispose of the same as expeditiously

as possible.   

..6/-

The interim order passed by this Court shall continue during the pendency

of the matter before the High Court.

..........................J (S.B. SINHA)

..........................J   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)    NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 8, 2008.