Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.9.2011. Vineet jain and another ........Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) seeking quashing of the order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the trial court. The impugned order dated 22.2.2006 reads as under:- “The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.10.2005 dismissed the Crl. Misc. Petition no. 32120-M of 2004 filed by the accused Vineet Jain etc. The present case was registered on the basis of the private complaint filed by one Sanjay Garg son of Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -2 - Gian Chand Garg, Executive Director of M/s Deepak Cosmo, resident of 1094, Sector-7, Panchkula on 6.4.2004. After registration of the case police swung into action. During the course of investigations police recommended the cancellation of the FIR. Complainant Sanjay Garg has filed the protest petition on 4.3.2005 disagreeing to the police findings. Considering the totality of circumstances it shall be appropriate if the matter is reinvestigated into. Accordingly, this case is again sent to the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula with the direction to get the matter reinvestigated while deputing the police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as the trial court had given no reasons as to why the cancellation report was being rejected. The trial court had failed to spell out as to why the matter required reinvestigation. The trial court could not direct the Superintendent of Police to get the matter reinvestigated from the police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Learned state counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that the trial court had passed the impugned order after considering the protest petition filed by respondent No.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -3 - The importance of giving reasons in judicial proceedings was considered by the Apex Court in 'Assisstant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Versus Shukla and Brothers, 2010(4) Supreme Court Cases 785, and it was held as under:- “18. Providing of reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings. Every litigant who approaches the court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such request. Either of the parties to the lis has a right to appeal and, therefore, it is essential for them to know the considered opinion of the court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may be subject to examination of the appellate or other higher courts. It is not only desirable but, in view of the consistent position of law, mandatory for the court to pass orders while recording reasons in support thereof, however, brief they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be understood in legal parlance as absence of reasons. While no reasoning in support of judicial orders is impermissible, the brief reasoning would suffice to meet the ends of justice at least at the interlocutory stages and would render the remedy of appeal purposeful and meaningful. It is settled canon of legal jurisprudence that the courts are vested with discretionary powers but such powers are to be exercised judiciously, equitably and Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -4 - in consonance with the settled principles of law. Whether or not , such judicial discretion has been exercised in accordance with the accepted norms, can only be reflected by the reasons recorded in the order impugned before the higher Court. Often it is said that absence of reasoning may ipso facto indicate whimsical exercise of judicial discretion. Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Article, “The Problem with the Courts” Black-robed Bureaucracy or Collegiality Under Challenge”20 observed as under: "My own guiding principle is that virtually every appellate decision requires some statement of reasons. The discipline of writing even a few sentences or paragraphs explaining the basis for the judgment insures a level of thought and scrutiny by the Court that a bare signal of affirmance, dismissal, or reversal does not." 19. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a losing litigant has a cause to plead and a right to challenge the order if it is adverse to him. Opinion of the Court alone can explain the cause which led to passing of the final order. Whether an argument was rejected validly or otherwise, reasoning of the order alone can show. To evaluate the submissions is obligation of the Court and to know the reasons for rejection of its contention is a legitimate expectation Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -5 - on the part of the litigant. Another facet of providing reasoning is to give it a value of precedent which can help in reduction of frivolous litigation. Paul D. Carrington, Daniel J Meador and Maurice Rosenburg, Justice on Appeal 10 (West 1976), observed as under:- "When reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that the correcting process is working. Announcing reasons can also provide public understanding of how the numerous decisions of the system are integrated. In a busy Court, the reasons are an essential demonstration that the Court did in fact fix its mind on the case at hand. An unreasoned decision has very little claim to acceptance by the defeated party, and is difficult or impossible to accept as an act reflecting systematic application of legal principles. Moreover, the necessity of stating reasons not infrequently changes the results by forcing the judges to come to grips with nettlesome facts or issues which their normal instincts would otherwise cause them to avoid." 20. The reasoning in the opinion of the Court, thus, can effectively be analysed or scrutinized by the Appellate Court. The reasons indicated by the Court could be accepted by the Appellate Court without Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -6 - presuming what weighed with the Court while coming to the impugned decision. The cause of expeditious and effective disposal would be furthered by such an approach. A right of appeal could be created by a special statute or under the provisions of the Code governing the procedure. In either of them, absence of reasoning may have the effect of negating the purpose or right of appeal and, thus, may not achieve the ends of justice. 21. It will be useful to refer words of Justice Roslyn Atkinson, Supreme Court of Queensland, at AIJA Conference at Brisbane on 13.9.2002 in relation to Judgment Writing. Describing that some judgment could be complex, in distinction to routine judgments, where one requires deeper thoughts, and the other could be disposed of easily but in either cases, reasons they must have. While speaking about purpose of the judgment, he said, "The first matter to consider is the purpose of the judgment. To my mind there are four purposes for any judgment that is written: - (1) to clarify your own thoughts; (2) to explain your decision to the parties; (3) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and (4) to provide reasons for an appeal Court to consider." 22. Clarity of thought leads to proper reasoning Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -7 - and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree18 the Court went to the extent of observing that "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. They are the link between the mind of the decision taker and the controversy in question. To justify our conclusion, reasons are essential. Absence of reasoning would render the judicial order liable to interference by the higher Court. Reasons are the soul of the decision and its absence would render the order open to judicial chastisement. The consistent judicial opinion is that every order determining rights of the parties in a Court of law ought not to be recorded without supportive reasons. Issuing reasoned order is not only beneficial to the higher Courts but is even of great utility for providing public understanding of law and imposing self-discipline in the Judge as their discretion is controlled by well established norms. The contention raised before us that absence of reasoning in the impugned order would render the order liable to be set aside, particularly, in face of the fact that the learned Judge found merit in the writ petition and issued rule, therefore, needs to be accepted. We have already noticed that orders even at interlocutory stages may not be as detailed as judgments but should be supported by reason howsoever briefly stated. Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -8 - Absence of reasoning is impermissible in judicial pronouncement. It cannot be disputed that the order in question substantially affect the rights of the parties. There is an award in favour of the workmen and the management had prayed for stay of the operation of the award. The Court has to consider such a plea keeping in view the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, where such a prayer is neither impermissible nor improper. The contentions raised by the parties in support of their respective claims are expected to be dealt with by reasoned orders. We are not intentionally expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions alleged to have been raised by respective parties before the learned single Judge. Suffice it to note that the impugned order is silent in this regard. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, various contentions were raised in support of the reliefs claimed but all apparently, have found no favour with the learned Judge and that too for no reasons, as is demonstrated from the order impugned in the present appeals." A perusal of the impugned order dated 22.2.2006 reveals that the trial judge has not given any reasons while disagreeing with the final report submitted by the investigating agency. The trial judge has merely stated in the impugned order that considering the totality of circumstances it shall be appropriate if the matter be reinvestigated. The trial court was Crl. Revision No. 730 of 2006 (O&M) -9 - required to pass a speaking order as to why the final report submitted by the investigating agency was not sufficient or what was lacking in the report which required reinvestigation. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.2.2006 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial court and the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE September 02, 2011 Gurpreet