9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge in C. Rev. No. 506/2019 titled "Sudhir Chaudhary v. State and Anr. Whereby the entire proceedings in the Ct. Case 9397 of 2019 before Ld. MM, PHC, New Delhi instituted by the petitioner seeking prosecution of Respondent no. 2 under Sections 499, 500 IPC have been stayed on the ground that Ld. MM passed order dated 01.08.2019 without hearing the respondent no. 2. 3. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is accomplished member of the All India Trinamool Congress party (hereinafter referred as "TMC"), and is a currently serving as a Member of Parliament in the present 17th Lok Sabha from Krishnanagar constituency in West Bengal. Prior to entering politics, the petitioner had a well-established career as an investment banker in London. 4. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that on 25.06.2019, the petitioner delivered a speech in the Indian Parliament wherein she warned that India is currently displaying the following 7 signs of fascism: (i) Superficial Nationalism. (ii) Disdain for Human rights. (iii) Media Control. (iv) Obsession with national Secur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner was subjected to harassment both in person and online where many people expressed disappointment of her alleged conduct. 9. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that given the harm caused by Respondent no. 2 to the petitioner"s reputation, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the Ld. CMM, Rouse Avenue Courts, Complex, seeking the prosecution of Respondent no. 2 under Section 499, 500 of the IPC. By order dated 09.07.2019, the Ld. CMM returned the complaint under Section 201 Cr.PC to be presented before the competent court of jurisdiction on the ground that the Courts in Rouse Avenue only had jurisdiction in respect of cases filed against Members of Parliament. Accordingly, on the same day, the petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint before the Ld. CJM, PHC, New Delhi and by order dated 15.07.2019 the Ld. MM took cognizance of the offence in the complaint filed by the petitioner and listed the case for pre-summoning evidence. The complainant was examined in pre-summoning evidence and discharged as Complaint Witness 1 on 27.07.2019. 10. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that respondent filed an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were listed before the Ld. MM. the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge in C.Rl. No. 506/2019 filed by the respondent stayed the proceedings before the Ld. MM on the ground that the respondent had not been heard before passing the order dated 01.08.2019. In the light of the order dated 25.09.2019 of the Ld. ASJ in Cr. Rev. No. 506/2019, the Ld. MM adjourned the order on summoning in complaint case along with applications under Section 340 CrPC and application for dismissal of complaint filed by the respondent to 04.11.2019. 13. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that as per the news reports, on 19.07.2019 more than ten days after filing of the defamation complaint by the petitioner against the respondent, Zee Media Corporation filed a criminal defamation complaint against the petitioner before the Special Court of Sh. Samar Vishal, Ld. ACMM, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, as a counterblast to the complaint case filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the application under Section 340 CrPC and the application for dismissal of the complaint case filed by the respondent were part of the tactics employed by the respondent to delay the complaint case of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused in his application moved under Section 340 CrPC and the Ld. ASJ granted stay ex-parte without stating the reasons for the stay. The Ld. ASJ ought to have noticed that the Order impugned was at the instance of an accused who had not even been summoned, and therefore, there was no irreparable prejudice that could have been caused to such revision petitioner and that stay ought not to have been granted without hearing the petitioner. It is further submitted that impugned order was passed without application of judicial mind in as much as the Ld. ASJ failed to observe that in the order dated 01.08.2019, contrary to the submissions of the respondent in the revision petition, the Ld. MM has recorded that part submissions of the counsel for prospective accused had been heard and that the adjournment was also sought by the prospective accused. 17. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that in any case the actions of the respondent are not bonafide and are a delaying tactic as he did not immediately challenge the order of the Ld. MM dated 01.08.2019 and waited over forty five days to challenge the order of the Ld. MM dated 01.08.2019 during which proceedings be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 340 CrPC was filed before Ld. MM. The Ld. MM has not heard the respondent, and therefore, the respondent has approached the court of Ld. Sessions Judge and the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has stayed the proceedings till next date of hearing. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. ASJ and, therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed as not maintainable. 22. I have gone through the judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. These are clearly distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances stated therein. Ld. Counsel for the respondent was given an opportunity to file reply/written submissions on or before 14.10.2019. However, no reply/written submissions were filed by the respondent. 23. I have considered the rival submissions. Law on the point of intervention by the prospective accused at pre-summoning stage in a complaint case before Ld. MM is well settled by series of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case titled "Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra (1964) 1 SCR 639" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; "7. Taking the first ground, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r; "46. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in the proceedings under Section 202 of the Code the accused/suspect is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. As a matter of law, upto the stage of issuance of process, the accused cannot claim any right of hearing" 27. Similarly in "Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 33" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held under; "14 In none of these stages the Code has provided for hearing the summoned accused, for obvious reasons because this is only a preliminary stage and the stage of hearing of the accused would only arise at a subsequent stage provided for in the latter provision in the Code. It is true as held by this Court in Mathew's case before issuance of summons the Magistrate should be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint but that satisfaction is to be arrived at by the inquiry conducted by him as contemplated under sections 200 and 202, and the only stage of dismissal of the complaint arises under section 203 of the Code at which stage the accused has no role to play, therefore, the question of the accused on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are pending and thus recording of the evidence of the witness present today is not feasible today due to infrastructural impediment. Hence, let matter be adjourned for leading further PSE for 05.08.2019. Copy of order be given dasti. (PREETI PAREWA) MM-06/PHC/ND/01.08.2019 30. The said order was challenged before the Ld. ASJ who has passed the following order on 25.09.2019; "C.R. No. 506/2019 Sudhir Chaudhary v. State & Anr. 25.09.2019 Ld. PO has been appointed as Secretary to Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) D.K. Jain Inquiry Committee in the matter of S. Nambi Narayan v. Siby Mathews and others in Civil Appeal no. 6637-6638 of 2018 in the Ministry of Home Affairs, on deputation. Present: Shri Vijay Aggarwal, Counsel for petitioner. Ld. Counsel has filed certified copy of impugned order dated 01.08.2019. Along with the petition, petitioner has also filed application for stay of proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court. Heard and perused the record. Ld. Counsel has, inter-alia, submitted that the impugned order was passed without hearing him, as can be seen from order dated 01.08.2019. He further submits that for further submissions TCR is required. Let TCR be su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int on the ground of fraud on the court. 33. Perusal of the order dated 01.08.2019 of the Ld. MM further reveals that prospective accused has filed an application under Section 340 CrPC. Part detailed arguments on the point of maintainability were heard by the Ld. MM. Further arguments were deferred at the request of Ld. Counsel for the applicant himself. Ld. MM, thereafter, has held that proceedings in the complaint case cannot be stalled because of filing of application under Section 340 CrPC. In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 01.08.2019 on the application under Section 340 CrPC is an interlocutory order as it does not decide anything finally. 34. In the judgment titled "Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, CR. Appl. No. 486-487/2009 (in SLP (Crl.) No. 2688-89/2005)", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined interlocutory order and relevant para is as under; "4. Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr. P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. The Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
