2014 (1) TMI 1870 - HC - Indian Laws

Power to discharge accused at summon stage / framing notice - Complaint of defamation against the petitioners - Sections 500 and 501 read with Sections 34 and 120B of IPC - aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. or not - HELD THAT - The Courts have no power to do justice or redress a wrong merely because no express provision of the Code can be found to meet the requirements of a case. All Courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of express provision in the Code for that purpose, as inherent in its very constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of the administration of justice. This is based on the principle, embodied in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest' - when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that, without which, it cannot exist. The High Court has, in addition thereto, and in view of its general jurisdiction over all the criminal Courts subordinate to it, inherent power to give effect to any order of any such Court under the Code, and to prevent the abuse of process of any such Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is in its nature extraordinary and is to be exercised ex debito justitae‟ to do the real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. The Court, therefore, has to be careful to see that its decision is based on sound general principles of criminal jurisprudence and is not in conflict with the statutory provisions. This provision cannot be invoked to override an express provision of law or when there is another remedy available - The present case does not fall within the aforesaid limitations as there is neither any express provision nor any express bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the accused at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. if no prima facie case is made out against him. This Court is satisfied that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law and therefore, this case warrants the issuance of appropriate directions in exercise of power under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution to enable the Magistrate to discharge the accused at the stage of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. if no prima facie offence is made out - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the summoning order.
2. Determination of whether respondent no.1 is an aggrieved person under Section 199(1) Cr.P.C.
3. Application of Section 251 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of notice.
4. Power of the Magistrate to discharge the accused in summons cases instituted upon complaints.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Summoning Order:
The petitioners challenged the summoning order dated 24th July 2013, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a defamation complaint under Sections 500 and 501 read with Sections 34 and 120B of IPC. The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal complaint filed by respondent no.1 on the grounds that the respondent was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C.

2. Determination of Whether Respondent No.1 is an Aggrieved Person:
The petitioners argued that respondent no.1 did not qualify as an aggrieved person under Section 199(1) Cr.P.C., thus challenging the legitimacy of the complaint. The court, however, did not delve into the merits of this argument at this stage, directing the petitioners to raise these issues before the Trial Court during the framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

3. Application of Section 251 Cr.P.C. at the Stage of Framing of Notice:
The court emphasized that the petitioners should present their pleas before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., as per the law laid down in several judgments. The court cited the Supreme Court's rulings in:
- Krishna Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe: The Supreme Court held that objections regarding jurisdiction should be raised before the Trial Court rather than rushing to higher courts.
- Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi): It is the duty of the Trial Court to determine whether an offense is made out against the accused at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C.
- Raujeev Taneja v. NCT of Delhi: The High Court directed the accused to raise their objections at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
- Urrshila Kerkar v. Make My Trip (India) Private Ltd.: The court reiterated that the Magistrate must apply their mind at the stage of framing of notice to determine if a prima facie case is made out.
- S.K. Bhalla v. State: The court held that the Magistrate must carefully consider the allegations and evidence to determine if an offense is disclosed.

4. Power of the Magistrate to Discharge the Accused in Summons Cases Instituted Upon Complaints:
The court discussed the inherent powers of the Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.:
- In warrants cases, the accused can seek discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. if no prima facie case is made out. However, in summons cases, there is no formal charge, and the substance of accusation is put to the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
- The court highlighted the necessity for the Magistrate to apply their mind and determine if a prima facie case is made out before framing the notice. If no case is made out, the Magistrate should drop the proceedings.
- The court clarified that the power to discharge the accused at the stage of framing of notice does not amount to recalling or reviewing the summoning order, which is prohibited under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners are entitled to raise their objections before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate must frame the notice only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out. If no case is made out, the Magistrate should discharge the accused. The court issued directions under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution to enable the Magistrate to discharge the accused at the stage of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. if no prima facie offense is made out.

Additional Directions:
The court directed the petitioners to file an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court. The Magistrate should not insist on personal appearance till the order under Section 251 Cr.P.C. is passed, provided the petitioners are represented by counsel who does not seek adjournments.

Distribution of Judgment:
The judgment was to be given to the counsel for the parties and sent to all District and Sessions Judges.