REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19  OF 2003

TUTUL KUMARI SEN ..  APPELLANT

vs.

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. ..  RESPONDENTS

J U D  G M E N T

Dr.  ARIJIT  PASAYAT,J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of  a learned single  

Judge  of  Jharkhand  High  Court  allowing  the  petition  filed  by  the  

respondent No.2.  

The factual matrix needed to be noted in brief.

An  application  was  filed  by the  respondent  No.2  praying  for  

discharge in terms of Sec.227 of the Code of Criminal, Procedure  1973  

(in short `the Code').  The move was opposed by the State.  The case

was  registered  for  alleged  commission  of  offences  punishable  under  

Sections 493 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC')  

on the basis of report filed  by the present appellant.

The allegation in the FIR is that after two days of Baisakh  

Purnima the accused came to the house of informant, picked her and  

committed rape on her. It was further the case of the informant that  on  

the pretext that the  accused would marry her, she was repeatedly  

-2-

subjected to rape and became pregnant and started pressurising  on the  

accused for marriage.  The accused and his family members refused and  

therefore  the  information  was  lodged.   After  investigation  police  

submitted  a  charge-sheet.   The  application  for  discharge  was  filed

primarily on the ground that age of the informant was not as was shown  

and therefore no offence under either Sec. 376 or 493 IPC was made out.  

The  trial  Court  held  that  this  was  not  a  case  where  the  prayer  for  

discharge could be accepted.   

The respondent No.2 moved the High Court by filing a criminal  

revision petition and High Court dispose of the revision petition with the  

following order:

“On going through the  impugned order  and after  hearing  the  

learned counsel for the parties, I find that  a bare perusal of the FIR in  

question (Sessions Case No. 312/2001, Ramgarh P.S.Case No.69/2000)  

does not disclose the commission of any offence.  In that view of the  

matter,  therefore,  the  learned  trial  Court  (Ist  Asstt.  Sessions  Judge,  

Dumka) was patently in error in refusing to discharge the petitioner.

This petition is allowed.  The impugned order is set aside.  The  

petitioner is discharged from the case.

Sd/- V.K.Gupta, CJ.”

-3-

In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  

submitted that High Court has clearly erred in interfering in the matter.  

The High Court's  conclusion that commission of any offence has not  

been disclosed is contrary to the materials on record and on misreading  

of the FIR lodged.

Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  No.2  supported  the

judgment.

We find that the order of the High Court is practically unreasoned.  It is  

not certainly the way a revision petition was to be disposed of.  There is  

absolutely no discussion as to why the conclusions of the trial Court in  

rejecting  the  prayer  made  in  terms  of  Sec.227  of  the  Code  were  

unsustainable. No basis has also been indicated as to why High Court of  

the view that no offence was disclosed in the FIR. Reasons introduce  

clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court  

ought  to  have  set  forth  its  reasons,  howsoever  brief,  in  its  order  

indicative of an application of its mind, all  the more when its order is  

amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has  

rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. Even in respect of  

administrative  orders  Lord  Denning  M.R.  in  Breen  v.  Amalgamated  

Engineering  Union  (1971  (1)  All  E.R.  1148)  observed  "The  giving  of  

reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration".In Alexander  

Machinery (Dudley)  Ltd.  v.  Crabtree  (1974  LCR 120)  it  was  observed:  

"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are

-4-

live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in  

question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute  

subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if  

the decision reveals   the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its  

silence,  render  it  virtually  impossible  for  the  Courts  to  perform their  

appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging  

the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a  

sound  judicial  system,  reasons  at  least  sufficient  to  indicate  an  

application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that  

the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One  

of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for  

the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of  

a  sphinx"  is  ordinarily  incongruous  with  a  judicial  or  quasi-judicial

performance. This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004 (5)  

SCC 568) has while reiterating the view expressed in the earlier cases  

for the past two decades emphasised the necessity, duty and obligation  

of the High Court to record reasons in disposing of such cases.  The  

hallmark of a judgment/order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial  

forum is to disclose the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons  

has been always insisted upon as one of  the fundamentals  of sound  

administration  justice-delivery system,  to  make known  that  there  had  

been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court  

and also as an essential requisite  

-5-

of principles of natural justice. Any judicial power has to be judiciously  

exercised  and  the  mere  fact  that  discretion  is  vested  with  the  

court/forum to exercise  the  same either  way does  not  constitute  any  

license to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be  

conveyed  by  the  well-known  saying:  "varying  according  to  the  

Chancellor's  foot".  Arbitrariness  has  been  always  held  to  be  the  

anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so when such  

orders  are  amenable  to challenge further  before higher  forums.  Such  

ritualistic observations and summary disposal which has the effect of, at  

times, cannot be said to be a proper and judicial manner of disposing of  

judiciously  the  claim  before  the  courts.  The  giving  of  reasons  for  a  

decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a  

matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the  

manner  and quality  of  exercise  undertaken,  as  also  the  fact  that  the  

court concerned had really applied its mind.

That being so, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit  

the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law.  However,  

we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of  

the case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                          ................ .J.               (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

             ...................J.

                                       (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 28, 2009.