High Court's summary refusal to issue notice found to breach natural justice; matter remanded for adjudication on merits

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) order which dismissed a criminal application without issuing notice to the respondent. The appellants sought quashing of an FIR which they said arose out of a civil dispute that had been given a "criminal colour".

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restored the criminal application to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits. The bench held that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in declining even to issue notice to the respondents and observed that in such circumstances "reasons ought to have been assigned" or, alternatively, notice should have been issued and the matter decided after hearing both sides. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We find that the appellant(s) herein had filed a criminal application seeking quashing of the complaint filed against the appellant(s). If the Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined to even issue notice to the respondent(s), then reasons ought to have been assigned for that purpose, or in the alternative, notice should have been issued to the respondent(s) and after giving a fair opportunity to both sides, dismissed the complaint on merits. In the absence of any of the aforesaid options being exercised by the Division Bench of the High Court, we find that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as we are not able to gather any reason as to why the High Court was not inclined to even issue notice to respondent(s) in the application filed by the appellant(s) herein seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the appellant(s)." The bench directed that Criminal Application No. 2439/2023 be restored on the High Court file and disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law, and concluded: "This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms."

Background The appeal arose from Criminal Application No. 2439/2023 before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), where the appellants sought quashing of a complaint/FIR lodged against them. The High Court recorded a brief order dated 30.10.2023: "After hearing the learned advocate for the applicants for sometime, we are not inclined even to issue notice in this matter. Writ petition stands dismissed." Respondent No.2 had been served but did not appear before this Court. The appellants contended that the underlying dispute was civil and had been improperly given a criminal character, and that the High Court failed to consider their application on merits or to provide reasons for declining to issue notice to the respondents.

The Supreme Court reviewed the procedural record and the impugned order and found the High Court's conduct to be procedurally deficient. The Court explained that where a bench declines to issue notice it must either assign reasons for declining or issue notice and then decide the matter after affording a fair opportunity; failure to do either constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. No alteration of legal precedent was required; the Court applied established procedural principles to correct the High Court's summary disposal. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, restored the criminal application to the High Court for adjudication on merits and disposed of the appeal accordingly. No interim directions were imposed beyond the remand; the matter was directed to be decided in accordance with law.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 658 Case Title: GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Learned counsel for the appellants (name not indicated in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Learned counsel for the respondent/State (name not indicated in judgment)