Supreme Court Grants Leave to Appeal in Housing Society Case: Dahisar Saraswati Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)

Date of the Judgment: October 12, 2018

Citation: Not available in the provided text.

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a High Court refuse to grant leave to appeal against an order of acquittal by a lower court, especially when violations of a specific act are alleged? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a housing cooperative society and allegations of violations of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in denying the society the opportunity to appeal a Metropolitan Magistrate’s decision. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra.

Case Background

The Dahisar Saraswati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the appellant, filed a complaint against respondents 2 to 6 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai. The complaint, registered as Complainant Case No. 429/55/04, alleged violations of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act by the respondents in the execution of a housing project and the allotment of flats. The housing society sought the prosecution of the respondents for these alleged violations.

On November 1, 2007, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted all the respondents. Aggrieved by this decision, the housing society sought leave to appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the housing society, leading to the acquittal of the respondents. The housing society then filed an application seeking leave to appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court, however, declined to grant leave to appeal, which prompted the housing society to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to appeals against orders of acquittal. This section allows for an appeal to be filed in the High Court after obtaining leave to appeal in cases where the original order was one of acquittal.

Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code states:

“If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.”

Arguments

The appellant (housing society) argued that the High Court should have granted leave to appeal, given the nature of the violations complained of and the material on record. They contended that a regular hearing by way of appeal before the High Court was necessary to examine the entire issue on facts and law.

The High Court, in declining to grant leave, presumably assessed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and did not find sufficient grounds to warrant an appeal. The specific arguments of the respondents are not detailed in the provided text.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in declining to grant leave to file an appeal against the order dated 1.11.2007 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the provided text. The court’s reasoning is primarily based on the need for a proper examination of the facts and law in the case.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need for a thorough examination of the case. The Court felt that the High Court should have allowed the appeal to ensure that the allegations of violations of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act were properly scrutinized. The Court emphasized the importance of a regular hearing to evaluate both the factual and legal aspects of the case.

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of whether the High Court should have allowed the appeal. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the principle that when serious allegations are made, a proper hearing is necessary to ensure justice.

The Court stated: “Having pursued the order dated 01.11.2007, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have granted leave to the appellant (complainant) to file criminal appeal.”

Further, the Court observed: “In other words, having regard to the nature of violations complained of in the context of relevant provisions of the Act coupled with the material on record, a regular hearing by way of appeal before the High Court was necessary to examine the entire issue on facts and law which ought to have been granted to the complainant(appellant herein).”

The Court also clarified: “We may observe that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore, the High Court will decide the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) on merits strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts should grant leave to appeal when there are substantial allegations of violations and a need for a thorough examination of facts and law.
• ✓ The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a regular appeal to ensure that all aspects of a case are properly scrutinized.
• ✓ The matter has been remanded to the High Court for a decision on merits, without any influence from the Supreme Court’s observations.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to expedite the hearing of the appeal, given that the case is quite old.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable as no specific amendment was discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court should grant leave to appeal when there are substantial allegations and a need for a thorough examination of facts and law. This decision reinforces the importance of the appellate process in ensuring justice and proper scrutiny of lower court decisions. This case clarifies the High Court’s role in granting leave to appeal and emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of cases involving alleged violations of law. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Dahisar Saraswati Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., set aside the order of the High Court, and granted leave to appeal. The matter has been remanded to the High Court for a decision on merits. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the case on both facts and law, highlighting the importance of a regular appeal in ensuring justice.