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.”
4. The appellant has challenged the aforesaid directions in these proceedings on the ground that in a complaint case where summoning order has been issued and no charge is to be framed and, the order permitting the respondents to raise such contentions at the stage of framing of notice and directing the Metropolitan Magistrate to consider the same and pass appropriate order is contrary to law. The substance in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to this legal position is not even rebutted by the respondents. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Jayant Bhushan & Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, that in such an eventuality, when the petition filed by the respondents under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has not been decided by the High Court on its merits, the matter be sent back to the High Court for decision of the said petition. We agree with this course of action suggested by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. We may record at this stage that it is the submission of Dr. A.M Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, which was an argued contention before the High Court, that petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C filed by the respondents is not maintainable and it was also argued that particularly, at this stage, when the notice has been framed and the complainant has also been examined, the High Court should not interfere with the trial. The learned counsel for the respondents refuted this submission and submit that acts of the court should prejudice none.
5. Since we are remitting the case to the High Court, it is not appropriate for this Court to make any observation on the aforesaid submissions made by the parties. 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. Likewise, it would be permissible for the respondents to raise all their contentions in support of their petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and the High Court while entertaining the said petition shall deal with the contentions raised by both the parties.
6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted to the High Court for its decision.
7. The parties agree that they will appear before the High Court on 20.12.2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 1306/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/01/2014 in CRLMC No. 5245/2013 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
Amit Sibal.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(With Appln. For amending the SLP pursuant to receipt of the certified copy of the order and judgment dated 16.1.2014 passed by High Court and bringing on record additional documents and directions and permission to file additional documents and stay and office report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL)
Date : 17/11/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before A.K Sikri and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Dr. A.M Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.N Karanjawala, Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Anuja, Adv.
Ms. Suman Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Karan Dev Chopra, Adv.
Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv.
Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Subodh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Archna Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Duneja, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
8. The criminal appeal is allowed of in terms of the signed order.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.