Where Summons / Warrant have been issued against a person pursuant to a Criminal Complaint filed before the Magistrates Court, the said aggrieved / accused person may prefer an Application u/s 313(1)(a) of CrPC, 1973, before the same Magistrates Court, to show palpable infirmity in the purported evidences relied upon by the Complainant, on the basis of which, the Hon’ble Court have pleased to issue summons / warrant u/s 204 of CrPC, 1973; and where the Magistrates Court reject the said Application, either Revision u/s 397 of CrPC, 1973 or Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 may be preferred.
Whoever is aggrieved by any Order of any Criminal Court who are subordinate to High Court, may challenge such order by preferring Section 482 Application before High Court. Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, recognizes the inherent powers of the High Courts to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 482 Criminal Application: Whoever is aggrieved by any Order of any Criminal Court, which is subordinate to the respective High Court, may challenge such Order by preferring Section 482 Application before concerned High Court.
Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, preserves the inherent powers of the High Courts to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
1. The legal process in the Court of law is initiated by the presentation / institution of a Case, whether in the form of a Suit, Petition, Application etc, in the competent court of jurisdiction.
2. Every litigation presupposes the accrual of “cause of action”, that is to say, reason for initiating legal action in the Court of law.
3. Accrual of cause of action implies and presupposes infringement of litigant’s some statutory right / fundamental right / equitable right / contractual right / or any other right recognized under the statutes or customs.
4. In order to commence a legal action, the person must have some real grievance, which is the foundation of any legal action. For having right to move the court of law, the right sought to be enforced should have already come into existence, and there should be an infringement of it, or at least a serious and imminent threat exist of its infringement.
5. Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, preserves the inherent powers of the High Courts to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
6. Some of the landmark rulings of Apex Court which illustrate the scope and powers of High Courts to grant relief under this jurisdiction.
Para 18: In State of Haryana & Ors. (appellant) v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (respondents) , this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court, enumerated various categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. They are:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even, if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence; justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same; do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
7. In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka , the Supreme Court, among other things, said, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
8. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab  this Court summarized some of the categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding against the accused, stating:
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction;
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
9. The inherent powers of the HC is a wide and wholesome power. If the court has to examine and determine whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be just or would be improper, there is no reason why there should be any limitation on the powers of the court to look into all the materials available on record. There is nothing in law to place any such limitation on the powers of the HC. Surendra Kumar Yadav versus State of Bihar – [1989 Patna HC].
10. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Muradali Khan and others, the Apex Court held as under  …..When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the .accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, RupanDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, SatvinderKaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]" (emphasis supplied).
11. Coming to deliverance and dispensation of justice, the Courts / Tribunals, in the exercise of adjudicating and declaring rights and obligation of respective parties which are before it, formulate its decision by employing laws of the land, the principle of equity, and customs & usages.
12. The principles of natural justice forms the corner stone of every judicial procedure and decision and it postulate that both the litigating parties must have equal and sufficient opportunity to deal with the allegations made against them.
13. A Judicial decision must be a self contained document from which it should appear as to what the facts of the case were and what was the controversy, which was tried to be settled by the Court / Tribunal.
14. The process of reasoning by which Court came to a particular conclusion and decreed or dismissed the case, should clearly be reflected in the decision. 15. The decision should be on the basis of evidence on record and in accordance with law.
16. The fate of Justice is tied to the thread of reason: Reasoned decisions are inescapable in the entire scheme of administration of Justice, as explained decision breathes life into court order. Reasons disclose how the mind was applied to the subject matter and reveals a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached.
Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the judicial authority has applied its mind to the facts on record. The reasons employed not only be logical / conceivable but which will also deal with the substantial points which have been raised.
An unreasoned Order presupposes the non consideration of evidences and submissions on record made by the Party therein and the opportunity of affording due hearing would be rendered meaningless and empty formality and thus in essence occasion the frustration of principles of natural justice for the prejudiced party.
The giving of satisfactory reasons is required by the ordinary man’s sense of justice. Reasoned decisions are vital for the purpose of showing that one is receiving justice.
17. Having said all this, and to say that reasons must be given for decisions, what we really expect from the judicial authority.
Reasons are appreciation of such facts and evidences which are on record, and from which the judicial authorities are entitled to draw inferences and results.
Then comes the question, what is appreciation of facts and evidences.
Appreciation of facts and evidences is, drawing natural and logical inferences, drawing natural and logical results, which necessarily flow from those facts and evidences [the facts would mean those facts which are self evident or are admitted, or facts which are reasonably proved, disproved or not proved].
Appreciation of facts and evidence is an exercise wherein the proved existence of certain facts, provokes or persuades the decision maker to reach a certain conclusion.
And to put it further straight, Reasons are those statements, whereby the decision maker will tell you, WHY your submissions to claim certain reliefs, or WHY your submissions to deny reliefs claimed, are meritorious or if are meritless; or to say, the decision maker will tell you, WHY you are entitled to the reliefs or WHY you are not entitled to the reliefs, claimed or prayed for.
18. I am hasten to add here the notable observations of the Apex court in the case of State Of Uttaranchal Versus Sunil Kumar Vaish .
Para 18: Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided.
Para 19: Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system.
In the following instances, Section 482 Application may be preferred:
1. Whoever is aggrieved by false and frivolous registration of FIR, or is aggrieved by the Summons issued by the Magistrates Court on a false and frivolous Complaint filed before him, may seek the quashing of said FIR or may challenge the said Summons by preferring a Revision Application before Sessions Court or the High Court, or may prefer Section 482 Application before the concerned High Court.
2. Whoever is aggrieved by any order (order not interlocutory in nature) passed by a Magistrates Court, may challenge the said order by preferring a Revision Application before Sessions Court or the High Court or may prefer Section 482 Application before the concerned High Court. Where an Application u/s 156(3) is filed before Magistrates Court for Registration of FIR and investigation, is rejected, the aggrieved person may prefer a Revision or may prefer Section 482 Application before the concerned High Court.
3. Where Summons / Warrant have been issued against a person pursuant to a Criminal Complaint filed before the Magistrates Court, the said aggrieved / accused person may prefer an Application u/s 313(1)(a) of CrPC, 1973, before the same Magistrates Court, to show palpable infirmity in the purported evidences relied upon by the Complainant, on the basis of which, the Hon’ble Court have pleased to issue summons / warrant u/s 204 of CrPC, 1973; and where the Magistrates Court reject the said Application, either Revision u/s 397 of CrPC, 1973 or Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 may be preferred.
4. In Summons triable cases, where the Magistrates has dismissed the complaint and acquittal of accused, due to absence of complainant on the date of hearing, the aggrieved Complainant may prefer Revision, saying that dismissal of Complaint is harsh / bad in law / against the interest of justice, and on other grounds stated hereinafter.
5. (a) Where in cases “Charge” was not formally framed in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or
(b) Where there was error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charges in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or
(c) Where there was misjoinder of charges, in respect of certain offences, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of those offences, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or
(d) Where it is alleged that there was error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, and failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; or
(e) Where, having regards to the facts of the case and having regard to certain facts stands proved, no valid charge could be framed against the Applicant herein,
the aggrieved person may prefer a Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC, 1973, before Sessions Court, and thereafter may prefer Section 482 Application before High Court.
No adverse Order if No adverse findings
1. It is typical for Courts and Judges, whilst passing Orders and decisions, (to commit basic and elementary mistakes, and most of the times consciously) outright overlooking some of the very material facts and evidences / submissions / Judgments cited, by the losing Party; and drive themselves to irrelevant consideration of facts.
2. Before discussing the aforesaid expression “No adverse Order if No adverse findings”, let us first broadly look at the decision making process.
3. Broadly, the decision making is a process wherein, having regard to the Reliefs claimed, the presiding Judge – (a) examine the (legality) of facts alleged, (b) examine the (legality) of stand of the adversary, (c) examine the materials and the evidences which are placed before him in support of the facts alleged by both the sides; (d) would record his reasoned finding (prima facie or conclusive) as to the existence or the non existence of the facts alleged.
4. The process of recording finding of facts is, having regard to the applicable laws and precedents, testing of facts and evidences, and drawing natural, logical and legal inferences and outcomes, which necessarily flows from those facts and evidences [the facts would mean those facts which are self evident or are admitted, or facts which are reasonably proved, disproved or not proved]. Appreciation of facts and evidence is also an exercise wherein the existence of certain facts and evidence, provokes or persuades the decision maker to reach a certain conclusion.
5. Once findings as to facts are arrived at, the decision follows, either granting the reliefs claimed for, or the denial of.
6. However, what is witnessed in many Orders of the Courts is – either (a) In the process of finding of facts, findings on significant material fact are not recorded at all, by overlooking all the materials and evidences and submissions of the losing party, which are placed on record; the evidences and submissions, which had a direct bearing on the decision of the Court; or (b) whilst recording finding as to material fact, some of the material facts agitated / evidences / submissions / Judgments cited are not dealt with. The situation (a) mainly occurs in discretionary jurisdiction Orders/ Interim /Ad-Interim Orders / and Orders passed at Appellate stage; and situation (b) occurs in Orders passed in original proceedings. [Material facts would mean such facts which naturally arises in the nature of legal proceeding and nature of reliefs claimed]
7. In wealth of judgments, the Apex Court and High Courts have insisted upon recording of reasons whilst arriving at findings of facts and law. In a case (AIR 2011 SCW 5486) before it, the Apex Court have observed to say that Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning, on law and facts.
8. Therefore, IF it is contempt of the Court, if reasoned findings are not recorded, then it is regressive and aggravated contempt, to not to record findings at all.
9. Can we really compel the Courts to record finding of fact in their decisions? At least the Apex Court in a case before it [(2006) 9 SCC 222], have said Yes. The Apex Court have held that before subjecting a party to the adverse decision, adverse findings must be recorded against it.
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case, have set aside the Order of the High Court on the grounds that, the High Court, before directing the Defendants to “clear the encroachment”, should have recorded the findings that “Defendants had entered upon the suit land and put up construction subsequent to the undertaking given to the trial court”.
It was a case where the Defendant in a Suit gave undertaking to the trial Court that Defendants will not interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff’s land. The Suit was disposed of on the basis of above undertaking. Thereafter, the Plaintiff moved Execution Application under O.21 R.32 before the trial Court alleging that Defendants have constructed some structure on the Suit land. The trial Court dismissed said Execution Application. The Plaintiff challenged trial Court’s Order before High Court. The High Court directed the Defendants to clear the encroachment effected by them on the suit land. In this backdrop, the Apex Court set aside the Order of the High Court on the grounds that, the High Court, before directing the Defendants to “clear the encroachment”, should have recorded the findings that “Defendants had entered upon the suit land and put up construction subsequent to the undertaking given to the trial court”.
10. The Illustration: To illustrate the proposition of “Findings”, agitated hereinabove, therefore, in a Writ Petition, the High Court, before refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction on the grounds of availability of alternate remedy, and depending upon the nature of facts alleged, must record a prima facie finding that, having regard to the facts on record, (a) fundamental rights of the Petitioners are not infringed; and / or (b) principles of natural justice have not been infringed; or (c) the Authority / Subordinate court / Tribunals have acted within their respective jurisdiction. This is because, there are ample judgments of Apex Court, wherein it is held that, on the existence of any of the aforesaid grounds in the case, notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy, the High Courts must exercise their Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [AIR 1970 SC 645; AIR 2010 SCW 7184; AIR 1999 SC 22; AIR 2012 SCW 616; AIR 2003 SC 2120; AIR 2005 SC 3936; AIR 1958 SC 86 (Constitution Bench Judg); (2011) 5 SCC 697; AIR 1969 SC 556; (2015) 6 All MR 35 (BHC)]
Similarly, in an Application for Anticipatory Bail, the Session Judge / High Court, before rejecting Anticipatory Bail must record a prima facie finding that, having regard to the facts on record, (a) the Applicant is not cooperating in the investigation; (b) custodial interrogation of the Accused is essential; or (c) There is a apprehension of tampering of the witness by the Applicant; or (d) There is a possibility of the Applicant to flee from justice; or that there is a possibility of the Accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
11. The necessity of recording of finding on material facts, would take away the arbitrary and whimsical discretion of the Courts, for, they have to record findings, based on facts and evidences which are explicitly placed on record. And when the facts / evidence are seen large, the Courts may abstain from recording illogical findings, which are contrary to facts / evidence placed on record, and seen large.
This is how the captioned proposition should come into play, that is, “No adverse Order if No adverse findings”.
The concentrated view which emerges runs to the effect that every decision / Order of the court, be interim or final, must be based on findings of facts recorded by it, whether prima facie or conclusive, on such facts which naturally arises in the nature of legal proceeding and nature of reliefs claimed.
The User may fill up the requisite details in the table below and they would be furnished at their email address the relevant Template.