AMIT SIBAL Vs. ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS.
LAWS(SC)-2016-11-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 17,2016

Amit Sibal Appellant
VERSUS
Arvind Kejriwal And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The appellant has filed a complaint of defamation against the respondents herein under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In the said complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed summoning order dated 24.07.2013. Challenging that order the respondents herein filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the High Court of Delhi. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the High Court, in the said petition, has passed order dated 16.01.2014. A perusal of the order of the High Court reflects that after noticing the contentions of both the parties, the High Court permitted the respondents to raise the pleas which are raised in the said petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. It is also directed that at that stage the Metropolitan Magistrate shall consider them and pass a speaking order. The operative portion of the order giving these directions reads as under: "21. Applying the aforesaid principles to this case, the petitioners are permitted to urge the pleas raised in this petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. whereupon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall consider them and pass a speaking order. The learned Magistrate shall frame the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. only upon satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate shall be empowered to discharge/drop the proceedings against the petitioners if no case is made out against them. Needless to say, if the learned Magistrate chooses to frame notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the remedies as available in law. 22. This petition and the applications are disposed of on the above terms. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the contentions of the parties on merits which shall be considered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.