9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1626 - SC - Indian LawsComplaint of defamation - Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - the petition filed by the Respondents Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been decided by the High Court on its merits - HELD THAT - The case is remitted to High Court for reconsideration - 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 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Complaint of defamation under Sections 500 and 501 of IPC - Challenge to summoning order - High Court's directions under Section 482 of CrPC - Maintainability of petition under Section 482 of CrPC. Analysis: The appellant filed a defamation complaint against the respondents under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The Metropolitan Magistrate issued a summoning order, which the respondents challenged by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of Delhi. The High Court, after considering the contentions of both parties, allowed the respondents to raise their pleas at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 of the CrPC. The High Court directed the Magistrate to pass a speaking order after considering the raised pleas. The High Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the contentions, leaving it to the Magistrate's discretion. The appellant contested these directions, arguing that allowing the respondents to raise contentions at the notice framing stage was contrary to law. The appellant's challenge focused on the legality of permitting the respondents to raise contentions at the notice framing stage when no charge was to be framed. The respondents did not rebut the appellant's contention on this legal position. The respondents' senior counsels suggested sending the matter back to the High Court for a decision on the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC. The appellant's senior counsel argued before the High Court that the petition under Section 482 was not maintainable, especially after framing the notice and examining the complainant. The respondents' counsel countered this argument, emphasizing that court actions should not prejudice any party. The Supreme Court decided to remit the case to the High Court, refraining from making observations on the parties' submissions. The Court clarified that all contentions, including the petition's maintainability, could be argued before the High Court, which would address the issues raised by both parties. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and returning the matter to the High Court for a decision. Both parties agreed to appear before the High Court on a specified date for further proceedings.
|
