Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GOPAL GOVIND LAKADE & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Decided
5 May 2025
Judges listed
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 307 · 2025 INSC 658

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 308

2

Respondent no.2 has been served. However, there is no representation on behalf of respondent no.2. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) and learned counsel for the respondent/State.

p. 308

3

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s) drew our attention to the impugned order. For immediate reference, the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal Application No. 2439/2023 is extracted as under - “P.C. 1. After hearing the learned advocate for the applicants for sometime, we are not inclined even to issue notice in this matter. 2. Writ petition stands dismissed.”

p. 308

4

Learned counsel for the appellant(s) submitted that there has been no consideration of the case of the appellant(s) by the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court was not even inclined to issue notice to the respondent(s) in the application filed by the appellant(s) herein; that there is a civil dispute between the appellant(s) and respondent no.2 which has been given a criminal colour and an FIR has been lodged against the appellant(s) herein which was sought to be quashed. There being no reason whatsoever for dismissing the complaint, let alone declining to even issue notice, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the High Court.

pp. 308–309

5

Learned counsel for the respondent(s)/State submitted that appropriate orders may be made in this appeal having regard to the nature and tenor of the impugned order.

p. 309

6

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).

p. 309

7

In the circumstances, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and restore Criminal Application No. 2439/2023 on the file of the High Court, by remanding the matter to the High Court with a request to dispose the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

p. 309

8

This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Result of the case: Appeal disposed of. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

p. 309