WWW.LIVELAW.IN ITEM NO.22               COURT NO.1               SECTION II­C                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3689/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  06­04­ 2018 in Crl.MMO No.115/2018 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla) SANJIV CHATURVEDI                                  Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS VINEET CHAWDHRY                                    Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.60651/2018­EXEMPTION FROM  FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.60653/2018­ EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)   Date : 14­05­2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shreeji Bhavsar, Adv. for Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. [AOR]                     For Respondent(s) -                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R Heard   Mr.   Colin   Gonsalves,   learned   senior   counsel assisted   by   Mr.   Shreeji   Bhavsar,   learned   counsel   for   the petitioner. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date: 2018.05.14 17:35:49 IST Reason:

In this Special Leave Petition, the petitioner calls in

question the order dated 06.04.2018 passed in Cr.MMO No.115 of   2018   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Himachal   Pradesh   at Shimla.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN SLP(Crl.)No.3689/18 ... (contd.)

­ 2 ­ On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court, we find that the learned Single Judge, except stating that he is not inclined to interfere in the petition under Section 482,   Cr.P.C.   seeking   quashing   of   the   complaint,   has   not adverted to any aspect.  Be it noted, though the submissions have been referred to in the impugned order, the same have not at all been addressed. In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   we   think   it   appropriate   to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. This   order   may   be   communicated   to   the   respondent. Needless to say, if the respondent feels aggrieved by this order, liberty is granted to him to file an application for recall of this order. The   petitioner   is   at   liberty   to   produce   this   order before the concerned Magistrate. The   Special   Leave   Petition   stands   disposed   of accordingly.   Pending   applications,   if   any,   may   be   deemed to have been disposed of. (Subhash Chander)                 (Tapan Kumar Chakraborty)    AR­cum­PS                           Court Master