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