Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), seeking ad-interim stay of the proceedings in a complaint case, pending before the ACMM-04, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi (‘the Trial Court’), Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, noted that the Additional Sessions Judge, observed that the purpose of Section 210 of the CrPC was to avoid taking cognizance of the same offence again, and to avoid separate trial for the same offence. The Court opined that, however, in the present case, the complaint had been filed for the offence of defamation and the FIR had been registered for the offences of cheating and forgery, thus, the question of taking cognizance of the same offence would not arise. Further, the Court was also barred from taking cognizance of the offence of defamation on a police report, it could only be taken on a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. The Court noted that the present complaint was not merely based on the imputations made against the complainant by the accused persons on a letter dated 04-04-2016, but the complainant also referred to several other incidents and allegations against the accused persons. Thus, the Court opined that it was not inclined to stay the proceedings before the Trial Court and dismissed the present application.
Background
In the complaint case, which was pending before the Trial Court, summons was issued against the three accused, one of which was the present petitioner. Thereafter, the accused persons had preferred a criminal revision, against the said order, and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29-11-2023. Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 29-11-2023, had led to serious miscarriage of justice and the order was passed contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioner stated that the impugned order was passed on the amended complaint of Respondent 2-complainant, alleging defamation against the petitioner, which was time barred. The petitioner stated that the incidents of the defamation had been alleged to have taken place on 16-02-2020 and 21-02-2020, the complainant had neither preferred application for condonation nor explained the delay. Thus, the complaint being filed after expiry of three years period, was barred by time.
The petitioner further contended that in the impugned order dated 29-11-2023, the Additional Sessions Judge, failed to take note of Section 210 of the CrPC whereby, when a criminal case was instituted on private criminal, it was produced to the Magistrate, that a police investigation was in progress in relation to the offence which was subject matter of inquiry or trial, then the Magistrate should stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a from the police officer conducting the investigations. The petitioner contended that since the allegations of defamation, regarding the letter dated 04-04-2016, was under investigation in an FIR, therefore the petitioner prayed that the proceedings before the Trial Court, could be stayed during the pendency of the present petition.
Thus, the following two grounds were raised before the Court for seeking stay of the Trial Court proceedings:
-
It was stated that the summons could not have been issued in the present case, since the complaint was barred by the time;
-
It was stated that the Court was bound to stay the proceedings in this case, since an FIR in respect of same allegations and offence were already registered thus, proceedings in present complaint case could not have continued as per Section 210 of the CrPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
Regarding the first ground raised for seeking stay of trial court proceedings, the Court noted that the complainant had contended that the accused persons including the petitioner had been defaming the complainant, regularly through the social media and social media posts, videos, and press conferences of the alleged incidents were even available on the internet till date. The Court opined that the prima facie, it appeared that the offence of defamation in the present case, was not a one-time offence committed in 2020, and at the present stage, the Court did not prima facie found any infirmity with the observations to stay the proceedings.
Further, regarding the second ground, the Court analyzed the detailed discussion made in the impugned order dated 29-11-2023, and opined that the Additional Sessions Judge, after examining the provision of Section 210 of the CrPC and the judicial precedents, rightly observed that the FIR related to preparation of forged letter dated 04-04-2016, was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and not under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The purpose of Section 210 of the CrPC was to avoid taking cognizance of the same offence again and to avoid separate trials for the same offence. However, in the present case, the complaint case had been filed for the offence of defamation and the FIR had been registered for the offences of cheating and forgery, thus, the question of taking cognizance of the same offence would not arise. Further, the Court was also barred from taking cognizance of the offence of defamation on a police report, and it could only be taken on a complaint filed by the aggrieved party.
The Court noted that the present complaint was not merely based on the imputations made against the complainant by the accused persons on a letter dated 04-04-2016, but the complainant also referred to several other incidents and allegations against the accused persons. Therefore, upon a prima facie examination of the impugned order and without going much into the merits of the case, the Court opined that the Additional Sessions Judge had examined in detail, the issue of registration of FIR in relation to the letter dated 04-04-2016, and simultaneous proceedings in the present complaint case for commission of offence of defamation. Thus, the Court opined that it was not inclined to stay the proceedings before the Trial Court and dismissed the present application.
[Manjinder Singh Sirsa v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 495, decided on 24-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Jasprit Singh Rai, Yoginder Handoo and Ashwin Kataria, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Manoj Pant, APP for the State with Inspector Chetan Mandia, EOW; Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Naginder Benipal, Sumit Misra and Mayank Sharma, Advocates.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
