Case Note & Summary
Background: The matter arose from criminal proceedings in Uttar Pradesh, where the appellants were accused in an FIR but were not named in the chargesheet. The complainant sought their summoning under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Special Judge allowed the application, and the High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 without recording reasons. The appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order. Facts: An FIR was registered at Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh under Sections 323/34, 324, 504, 506, 307/34, 336, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The chargesheet filed on 3rd October, 2022 did not name the appellants as accused. After trial commenced, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 CrPC. The Special Judge, SC/ST Act, by order dated 11th June, 2025, allowed the application and summoned the appellants to face trial. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 5968 of 2025 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 11th August, 2025 by the impugned order. The impugned order consisted of eight paragraphs, the last three of which merely recorded that the judge had considered rival submissions, found no illegality or perversity, and dismissed the appeal, without any reasoning. Legal Issues: The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's non-speaking order dismissing the criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act was sustainable, and whether the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC could be upheld in the absence of reference to evidence and application of the settled legal test. Arguments: The appellants contended that the chargesheet did not list them as accused because the Investigating Officer found no evidence against them, and that the Special Judge had summoned them in a routine manner. The State and the complainant supported the summoning order. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court emphasized that every judicial verdict must disclose reasons, as held in Asma Lateef and Another v. Shabbir Ahmad and Others, (2024) 4 SCC 696. The Court observed that a laconic order cannot be appreciated or countenanced, and that even under heavy burden, brief orders must not sacrifice reasons. The Court noted that the High Court was expected to refer to some evidence led during trial and apply the test laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, before concluding that the appellants' prima facie involvement was established. The impugned order did not refer to any evidence, far less cogent evidence, indicative of non-application of mind. Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the impugned High Court order dated 11th August, 2025, and remanded the criminal appeal to the roster Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal expeditiously in accordance with law, after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellants, the State, and the complainant. Connected applications, if any, stood disposed of.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Judgments and Orders - Reasoned/Speaking Order - Supreme Court reiterated that every judicial verdict must disclose reasons, not just outcome; reasons ensure application of mind and enable appeal; High Court order dismissing criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with only eight paragraphs and no reasons violated this principle - Held that such laconic order cannot be countenanced and must be quashed (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Law - Summoning under Section 319 CrPC - Test of prima facie involvement - Supreme Court held that when persons not named in chargesheet are summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court must examine evidence led during trial and apply the test laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92; absence of any reference to evidence in the impugned order rendered it unsustainable - Held that High Court failed to consider evidence and thus the order was quashed and criminal appeal remanded (Paras 9-10). C) Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - Appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act - Standard of Judicial Scrutiny - Supreme Court stated that in a criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellate court must not dispose of the matter in a routine manner; it must provide reasons and assess prima facie evidence - Held that the High Court order was perverse for non-application of mind; matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing all parties (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court order dismissing a criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 without recording reasons is sustainable; whether the summoning order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against persons not named in the chargesheet is valid in the absence of reference to evidence and application of the test laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the impugned High Court order dated 11th August, 2025, and remanded the criminal appeal to the roster Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal expeditiously in accordance with law, after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellants, the State, and the complainant. Connected applications, if any, stood disposed of.
Law Points
- Every judicial verdict must disclose reasons
- reasons ensure application of mind
- high court criminal appeal must examine evidence
- hardeep singh test applies to section 319 crpc summoning
- laconic order cannot be countenanced
- order quashed and remanded for reasoned disposal
