LatestLaws.

com
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

Procedure,

1973

under

Section

(Cr.P.C.)

for

200
the

of

the

offences

Code

of

Criminal

punishable

under

Sections 500 and 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860

(IPC).

Magistrate

In

the

passed

said

complaint,

summoning

order

the

dated

learned

24.07.2013.

Metropolitan
Challenging

that order the respondents herein filed a petition under Section

482

of

Cr.P.C.

in

learned

counsel

for

the

High

the

Court

parties,

of
the

Delhi.
High

After

Court,

hearing
in

the

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
16:50:20 IST
Reason:

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

LatestLaws.com
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.

LatestLaws.com
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

LatestLaws.com
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.

LatestLaws.com
5
ITEM NO.3

COURT NO.9
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SECTION IIC
I N D I A

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.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
For

A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.

Sidharth Luthra, Sr.Adv.
R.N. Karanjawala, Adv.
Ruby Singh Anuja, Adv.
Suman Yadav, Adv.
Karan Dev Chopra, Adv.
Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
M/s. Karanjawala & Co.

For Respondent(s)

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.

Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr.Adv.

Himanshu Shekhar,Adv.
Rishikesh Kumar, Adv.
Subodh Kumar, Adv.
Archna Kumari, Adv.
Jamnesh Kumar, Adv.
Tushar Duneja, Adv.

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.

Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.

Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
Kamini Jaiswal,Adv.

LatestLaws.com
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

accordingly.

(Ashwani Thakur)
(Mala Kumari Sharma)
COURT MASTER
COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)

of