SC Judgment On Magistrate Has No Power To Discharge Accused in Summons Trial Cases at Notice Stage

LatestLaws.
com
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1101/2016
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 1306/2014)
AMIT SIBAL
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant has filed a complaint of defamation against the
respondents
herein
Procedure,
1973
under
Section
(Cr.P.C.)
for
200
the
of
the
offences
Code
of
Criminal
punishable
under
Sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860
(IPC).
Magistrate
In
the
passed
said
complaint,
summoning
order
the
dated
learned
24.07.2013.
Metropolitan
Challenging
that order the respondents herein filed a petition under Section

482
of
Cr.P.C.
in
learned
counsel
for
the
High
the
Court
parties,
of
the
Delhi.
High
After
Court,
hearing
in
the
the
said
petition, has passed order dated 16.01.2014. A perusal of the order

of the High Court reflects that after noticing the contentions of
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2016.11.21
16:50:20 IST
Reason:
both the parties, the High Court permitted the respondents to raise
the
pleas
which
are
raised
in
the
said
petition
before
the
Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under
LatestLaws.com
2
Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. It is also directed that at that stage
the Metropolitan Magistrate shall consider them and pass a speaking
order. The operative portion of the order giving these directions
reads as under:
21.
Applying the aforesaid principles to this
case, the petitioners are permitted to urge the
pleas raised in this petition before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of
notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. whereupon the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall consider
them and pass a speaking order. The learned
Magistrate shall frame the notice under Section
251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima
facie
case is made out against the petitioners.
The learned Magistrate shall be empowered to
discharge/drop
the
proceedings
against
the
petitioners if no case is made out against them.
Needless to say, if the learned Magistrate chooses
to frame notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the
petitioners would be at liberty to avail the
remedies as available in law.
22.
This petition and the applications are
disposed of on the above terms. It is clarified
that this Court has not examined the contentions
of the parties on merits which shall be considered
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
The appellant has challenged the aforesaid directions in these
proceedings on the ground that in a complaint case where summoning
order has been issued and no charge is to be framed and, the order
permitting the respondents to raise such contentions at the stage
of framing of notice and directing the Metropolitan Magistrate to
consider the same and pass appropriate order is contrary to law.
The substance in this contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant to this legal position is not even rebutted by the
respondents. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Jayant Bhushan &
Mr.
LatestLaws.com
3
Sanjay
R.
Hegde,
learned
senior
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents, that in such an eventuality, when the petition filed

by the respondents under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has not been
decided by the High Court on its merits, the matter be sent back to
the High Court for decision of the said petition. We agree with
this
course
of
action
suggested
by
the
learned
senior
counsel
appearing for the respondents. We may record at this stage that it

is
the
submission
of
Dr.
A.M.
Singhvi,
learned
senior
counsel
appearing for the appellant, which was an argued contention before

the High Court, that petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
filed by the respondents is not maintainable and it was also argued
that particularly, at this stage, when the notice has been framed
and the complainant has also been examined, the High Court should
not
interfere
with
the
trial.
The
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents refuted this submission and submit that acts of the

court should prejudice none.
Since we are remitting the case to the High Court, it is not

appropriate for this Court to make any observation on the aforesaid
submissions
made
by
the
parties.
We
make
it
clear
that
all
contentions which are available to the appellant, including the

maintainability etc. of the said petition, would be open to the
appellant which can be argued before the High Court and the High
Court shall deal with the same. Likewise, it would be permissible
for the respondents to raise all their contentions in support of
their petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the High Court
while
entertaining
the
said
petition
shall
deal
with
the
LatestLaws.com
4
contentions raised by both the parties.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed setting aside the impugned
order
and
the
matter
is
remitted
to
the
High
Court
for
its
decision.
The parties agree that they will appear before the High Court
on 20.12.2016.
......................J.
[A.K. SIKRI]
......................J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 17, 2016.
LatestLaws.com
5
ITEM NO.3
COURT NO.9
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SECTION IIC
I N D I A
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
1306/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/01/2014

in CRLMC No. 5245/2013 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
Delhi)
AMIT SIBAL
Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS.
Respondent(s)
(With Appln. For amending the SLP pursuant to receipt of the

certified copy of the order and judgment dated 16.1.2014 passed by
High Court and bringing on record additional documents and
directions and permission to file additional documents and stay and
office report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
Date : 17/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s)
Dr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
For
A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.

Sidharth Luthra, Sr.Adv.
R.N. Karanjawala, Adv.
Ruby Singh Anuja, Adv.
Suman Yadav, Adv.
Karan Dev Chopra, Adv.
Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
M/s. Karanjawala & Co.
For Respondent(s)
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr.Adv.

Himanshu Shekhar,Adv.
Rishikesh Kumar, Adv.
Subodh Kumar, Adv.
Archna Kumari, Adv.
Jamnesh Kumar, Adv.
Tushar Duneja, Adv.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.

Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.
LatestLaws.com
6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R
The criminal appeal is allowed of in terms of the signed

order.
Pending
application(s),
if
any,
shall
be
disposed
accordingly.
(Ashwani Thakur)
(Mala Kumari Sharma)
COURT MASTER
COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
of

SC Judgment On Magistrate Has No Power To Discharge Accused in Summons Trial Cases at Notice Stage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SC Judgment On Magistrate Has No Power To Discharge Accused in Summons Trial Cases at Notice Stage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SC Judgment On Magistrate Has No Power To Discharge Accused in Summons Trial Cases at Notice Stage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LatestLaws.

ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS.

that order the respondents herein filed a petition under Section

petition, has passed order dated 16.01.2014. A perusal of the order

Signature Not Verified

Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under

respondents, that in such an eventuality, when the petition filed

appearing for the respondents. We may record at this stage that it

appearing for the appellant, which was an argued contention before

respondents refuted this submission and submit that acts of the

Since we are remitting the case to the High Court, it is not

contentions which are available to the appellant, including the

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/01/2014

ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS.

(With Appln. For amending the SLP pursuant to receipt of the

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.

Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr.Adv.

Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

The criminal appeal is allowed of in terms of the signed

You might also like