1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1101/2016

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 1306/2014)

AMIT SIBAL APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2016.11.21

both the parties, the High Court permitted the respondents to raise
16:50:20 IST
Reason:

the pleas which are raised in the said petition before the

Metropolitan Magistrate at the stage of framing of notice under

 2

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.”

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.

 3

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.

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

 4

contentions raised by both the parties.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed setting aside the impugned

order and the matter is remitted to the High Court for its

decision.

The parties agree that they will appear before the High Court

on 20.12.2016.

......................J.
[A.K. SIKRI]

......................J.
[R. BANUMATHI]

NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 17, 2016.
 5

ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIC

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
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)

VERSUS

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.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

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.
 6

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The criminal appeal is allowed of in terms of the signed

order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of

accordingly.

(Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)