ZEE NEWS LTD. vs THE STATE AND Anr. (on 25th April 2016)
Citation – CRL . M.C. 2565/2013 and CRL M.A. No. 2065/2014
Date of Judgement-.April 25, 2016
Court- High Court of New Delhi
Case Type- Criminal Miscellaneous case (Crl. M.C.)
Petitioner- Sudhir Chaudhary & ZEE NEWS LTD.
Respondent- STATE and ANR.
Bench- HON’BLE Mr. Justice VIPIN SANGHI
Referred- Section- 482 OF Cr.P.C. AND 407 along with 500,501,506 of IPC
Petitioner Advocate- Aman Lekhi and others
Respondent Advocate- Rajat Katyal and others
FACTS OF THE CASE
The background in which Cr.M.C. 2565/13 is preferred is that respondent no. 2 M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against 14 accused persons – including the petitioner- M/s Zee News Ltd., alleging commission of offences under Section 500, 501 and 506 IPC read with Section 34/120B IPC, which was initially registered as Complaint Case no. 82/1/12. The same stands re-numbered as CC No.14/1/13. While the said complaint was still at the stage of recording the pre-summoning evidence in the Court of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, M.M., an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 210 Cr.P.C. on the ground that in respect of the same allegations – which is the subject matter of the said complaint case, FIR No. 240/2012, P.S. Crime Branch is already pending investigation. The petitioner claimed that the subject matter of both the cases viz. the complaint case and the FIR are the same. Initially, the said application was not taken up for consideration by the learned M.M. on 16.01.2013, and the recording of pre-summoning evidence continued. A criminal Revision being Cr.Rev. No. 16/13 was preferred by the petitioner Zee News Ltd. in the Court of learned ASJ in respect of the order dated 16.01.2013, and vide order dated 07.02.2013 passed by the learned ASJ, the learned M.M. was directed to dispose of application seeking stay, before proceeding in the matter. On 25.02.2013, the application for stay under Section 210 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned M.M. on the ground that the said application was premature, as the accused in the complaint case had not even bee summoned, and thus they had no right to be heard even on an application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on Nagawwa v. Veeranna & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1947. The Criminal Revision Petition to assail that order was also dismissed by the learned ASJ vide the impugned order dated 04.05.2013. The learned ASJ relied on Chandra Deo v. Prokash Chandra, 1963 (2) Cri.L.J. 397, wherein the Supreme Court held that an accused person does not come into the picture till he is summoned, i.e. till process is issued. He may remain present only to remain informed of the progress of the case. The Magistrate cannot put questions to the witnesses, who appear at the pre-summoning stage at the instance of the accused. Reliance was also placed on, inter alia, Pal v. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 123, wherein the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that Section 210 Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where, having taken cognizance of an offence in respect of an offence in a complaint case, in a separate police investigation such person is again made an accused. The learned ASJ also returned a finding, though prima facie, that the nature of offences in the police case and the complaint case “are not congruent”.
17. Mr. Lekhi also submits that there is no issue of locus standi of the petitioner under Section 210 Cr.P.C. in the present case. He relies on the judgment in Chandra Deo (supra), which acknowledges that a prospective accused is not precluded from being present when an inquiry is held by a Magistrate. The only bar that is imposed is that the defence of the accused cannot be inquired into by the Magistrate. It is further submitted that the purpose of invoking Section 210 Cr PC is not to hold a ‘mini-trial’ but to present facts which obligate stay of proceedings, on an issue collateral to merits, and not the merits of the complaint. He relies on K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police, (2004) 3 SCC 767, to submit that the expression “it is made to appear” used in Section 210 Cr.P.C. encompasses within it the information furnished by an accused who has not yet been summoned. This right recognised by Chandra Deo (supra) and guaranteed by Article 21, i.e. ‘procedure prescribed by law’, also flows from the terms of Section 210 Cr.P.C. Reliance is also placed on Md. Shamim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2002 (4) PLJR 829, wherein it was held that the accused has locus for the limited purpose of bringing to the knowledge of the Magistrate the facts which would enable him to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 210 Cr.P.C. He submits that Section 210 Cr.P.C. is applicable at the stage of inquiry. In this regard, he relies on Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (3) SCC 92. Reliance is also placed on Tej Kishan Sadhu v. State and Anr., 201 (2013) DLT 359, for the same proposition.
34. Mr. Sethi also submitted that the petitioner had no locus standi to file an application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. in the first place, since they have not been summoned yet to participate in the proceedings. It is premature. No right of hearing inheres in an accused prior to the issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.. He has no right to interfere with the inquiry or investigation. It is further submitted that even if it was to be assumed that Section 210(1) Cr.P.C. may have applicability in the facts of the present case, even then there is no merit in the said application, as the FIR case is still at the stage of investigation and the learned Magistrate is yet to take cognizance on the police report. He submits that in chapter XVI, Section 210 Cr.P.C. is placed after Section 204 Cr.P.C. Thus, Section 210 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked at the stage prior to issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed on Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, in which the Supreme Court while giving due weightage to the placement of the sections/provisions in the Statute, held as under:
55. From the reading of Section 210 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the said provision is applicable to proceedings initiated on a private complaint, i.e., a complaint case. The second aspect which emerges is that Section 210 Cr.P.C. can come into play when the stage of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate is, ‘inquiry’ or ‘trial’. In the facts of the present case, the application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. had been moved in the complaint case. Thus, the first ingredient – that an application under Section 210 Cr PC would lie in a complaint case, stood satisfied. It, therefore, needs examination whether the stage of, ‘inquiry’ or ‘trial’ had commenced in the complaint case when Section 210 Cr.P.C. was sought to be invoked by Zee News Ltd. The definition of ‘inquiry’ contained in Section 2(g) of the Cr.P.C., which means, ‘every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court’. Thus, an “inquiry” is different from a “trial” and it is conducted by the Magistrate or Court (and not by the police or any other authority legally entrusted with investigation). Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204 of Cr.P.C., insofar as they are relevant, may now be taken note of, which read as under
JUDGEMENT-“The aforesaid acts and omissions of these accused persons amount to an offence of criminal conspiracy, extortion, criminal intimidation and defamation. The complainant filed a complaint dated 02.10.2012 with the Commissioner of Police, Delhi pursuant to which FIR No.240 dated 02.10.2012 under Section 384/511/120B of Indian Penal Code has been registered with Crime Branch police station, New Delhi. The police have already seized all electronic devices along with original chips/ memory cards, used for said recordings and CDs. Investigation in the said FIR is still pending. Copies of FIR and seizure memo are hereto annexed and marked as Annexure C-11 Colly”.
Submissions of the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No.2565/2013
9. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Zee Limited submits that the application under Section 210 Cr PC maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, even though the petitioner had not been summoned when the said application was preferred. He that the learned Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure
in Section 210(1) and called for a report from the police officer investigating No.240/2012 registered at P.S. Crime Branch. The inter-relationship the programmes show that the acts alleged are separate, but not therefore, they form part…
REFERENCES- indiankanoon.com
vlex.in
(This case analysis is done by Ritvik Dasgupta of Manipal University Jaipur, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.)
0 Comments