Bombay High Court
Kangana Ranaut vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 February, 2024
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
2024:BHC-AS:7102-DB
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 130 OF 2024
Ms. Kangana Ranaut ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Mr. Javed Akhtar ...Respondents
*****
Mr.Rizwan Siddiquee with Mr.Aditya Charan and Ms.Sumreen
Aalana i/by Siddiquee and Associates, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr.Jaykumar Bharadwaj a/w Mr.Harsh Ramchandani Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, Special P. P. a/w Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for
Respondent-State.
*****
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024
P.C.:-
1. The Petitioner has preferred this Petition by invoking writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.) and prayed for following relief:
"a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any
appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, thereby ordering a Stay on the
proceedings filed by Respondent No.2 before the Hon'ble
Metropolitan Magistrate's 10th Court at Andheri, against the
Petitioner for offences under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 bearing C.C. No. 2575/SS/2020, till the
final decision of the revision on merit so that the cross cases
be tried together."
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 1
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
2. The Petitioner is complainant in C.C. No.441/SW/2021 filed in the
Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10 th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Respondent No.2 has been impleaded as accused in the said complaint.
Verification statement of Petitioner was recorded on 4 th July 2022. The
learned Magistrate had issued process against the accused/Respondent
No.2 vide order dated 24 th July 2023, for offences under Sections 506 and
509 of Indian Penal Code. The Respondent No.2 filed complaint viz.
C.C.No.2575/SS/2020 before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai on 3rd November 2020, for offences under
Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.").
Verification statement of Respondent No.2 was recorded on 3 rd December
2020. Vide order dated 1st February 2021, process was issued for offences
under Sections 499 and 500 of I.P.C. against accused (Petitioner).
3. The trial in C.C.No.2575/SS/2020 had commenced. Evidence of
witnesses is recorded. Whereas, the order issuing process passed in C.C.
No.441/SW/2021 filed by Petitioner has been challenged before the
Sessions Court by preferring Revision Application and vide order dated 24 th
August 2023, the said proceedings are stayed. The Revision Application is
pending for hearing.
4. The Petitioner's prayer in this Petition is to stay the proceedings
initiated by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner for offences under
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 2
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
Sections 499 and 500 of I.P.C. in C.C. No.2575/SS/2020 till the Revision
Application preferred by Respondent No.2 challenging the proceedings
initiated by Petitioner is decided and to try both the cases together being
cross cases.
5. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the genesis of
both the complaints is the incident of meeting, which had occurred in
March 2016. Thus, cases filed by the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.2
are in the nature of cross cases and required to be tried together in the
same Court. Cross cases are arising out of the same incident. It is settled
principle of law as laid down in various decisions of the Apex Court that the
cross cases are required to be tried simultaneously. C.C. No.441/SW/2021
as well as C.C. No.2575/SS/2020 are required to be tried together being
cross cases. The complaint filed by the Petitioner refers to serious incident.
However, process issued in the said complaint has been challenged by the
Respondent by preferring Revision Application and the proceedings are
stayed by the Sessions Court. The case initiated against the Petitioner
cannot proceed individually and therefore, the Revision Application, which
is pending before the Sessions Court is required to be decided before the
final decision could be arrived in the case which is filed against Petitioner.
It is submitted that, both cases arise out of same incident. It is the case of
the Petitioner, which shall bring out the truth of the said dispute between
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 3
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
Petitioner and Respondent No.2. In the event, the case of Respondent No.2
is allowed to proceed while the case of Petitioner is stayed, it would be
against the established principles of natural justice and fair trial.
6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has relied upon the following
decisions:-
(i) Nathi Lal and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Another1;
(ii) Sudhir and Others Vs. State of M.P.2;
(iii) State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (dead) and Others3
(iv) Zora Singh Vs. State of Harayana4.
(v) Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & Another Vs. Manubhai
Manjibhai Panchal & Another delivered by the Supreme
Court in Criminal Appeal No.1703 of 2021 decided on 1 st
September 2011.
7. In the case of Nathi Lal and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Anr. (supra),
it is observed that, in cross cases, the fair procedure to be adopted is to
direct the learned Judge to try both the cases one after the other. After
recording evidence in one case is completed, the Court must hear the
argument but must reserve the judgment. Thereafter, the Court must
proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence, he must
hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same Court
must thereafter, dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In the
case of Sudhir Vs. State of M. P. (supra), it is observed that, cross cases are
1 1990 (Supp) SCC 145
2 (2001) 2 SCC 688
3 (2003) 9 SCC 426
4 1995 SCC OnLine P&H 1671
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 4
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
to be tried simultaneously or in quick succession by same Magistrate. In the
case of State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal and Others (supra), it is held that, cross
cases to be tried together to avoid conflicting decisions. The Punjab and
Haryana High Court held that, cross cases be tried together as the decision
in either case will influence the other case.
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that, the case
which is initiated in first point of time has already commenced and
evidence is recorded. The complaint filed by Respondent No.2 relates to
the interview which was given by the Petitioner on 19 th July 2020
containing the insinuations amounting to defamation. The Petitioner filed
the complaint subsequently alleging commission of offences in respect to
incident of 2016. The complaints are not cross cases. Even considering the
principle laid down by Apex Court that, cross cases are to be tried
simultaneously, the case which is filed first in point of time by Respondent
No.2 has already proceeded. The complaint is filed by Petitioner belatedly.
Prior to filing of complaint, process was already issued in the complaint
filed by Respondent No.2. The Petitioner had initiated several proceeding
in the nature of transfer of cases and prayer was rejected by the Court of
learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Petitioner had also challenged
the said orders before the Sessions Court by preferring Revision
Applications and the relief was not granted. The Petitioner had also
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 5
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
challenged the process initiated by Respondent No.2 before Sessions Court
and this Court. The proceedings were dismissed. After the trial in the
complaint initiated by Respondent No.2 has come to an end, the Petitioner
has moved this application for stay of the proceeding initiated against her.
The Petitioner is attempting to stall the proceedings initiated against her,
which proceedings had reached to particular stage after recording evidence.
The Petitioner was not prevented from making such prayer at the earlier
point of time. After exhausting all the remedies for quashing and
transferring proceedings, the Petitioner has now contended that, both the
cases are in the nature of cross cases and required to be tried
simultaneously and therefore, the proceeding before the trial Court in
respect of complaint initiated by Respondent No.2 be stayed.
9. The Respondent No.2 filed complaint vide C.C. No.2575/SS/2020 on
3rd November 2020 for offences under Sections 499 and 500 of I.P.C. It was
alleged that, the Petitioner in her interview dated 19 th July 2020 to T.V.
channel made defamatory statements against Respondent No.2. Process
was issued against accused vide order dated 1st February 2021.
10. The Petitioner filed complaint before the Court of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate being C.C. No.441/SW/2021 on 16 th September
2021, for offences under Sections 383, 384, 387, 503, 506, 509 read with
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 6
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
Sections 44 and 30 of I.P.C.. It was alleged that despite of Petitioners
personal dispute with her co-star, yet the accused called the Petitioner and
her sister to her house and criminally intimidated and threatened her and
forced her to tender apology to her co-star. The incident had allegedly
occurred in March 2016. Verification statement of Petitioner was recorded
on 4th July 2022. Process was issued by Court of learned Magistrate against
Respondent No.2, for offences under Sections 506 and 509 of I.P.C. vide
order dated 24th July 2023.
11. The Petitioner challenged the order of summons issued against the
Petitioner by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.77 of 2021 before
Sessions Court. The said application was rejected by order dated 5 th April
2021. The Petitioner preferred Criminal Application No.545 of 2021 before
this Court for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.2575/SS/2020. Vide order
dated 9th September 2021, the said application was rejected.
12. The Petitioner filed application under Section 410 of Cr.P.C. for
transfer of Criminal Complaint No. 2575/SS/2020 pending before the Court
of Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai to any other
Court. The transfer case No.40/TA/2021 was rejected by the Court of
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai
(I/c Chief Metropolitan Magistrate), vide order dated 21 st October 2021.
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 7
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
The Petitioner filed application viz. Case No.55/TA/2021 under Section 410
of Cr.P.C. before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for transfer of
proceedings in C.C. No.441/SW/2021 pending before the Court of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai to any other Court.
The learned I/c Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the said application
vide order dated 18th December 2021.
13. The order dated 21st October 2021 rejecting transfer application was
challenged by the Petitioner before Sessions Court vide Criminal Revision
Application No.251 of 2021. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide
order dated 31st December 2021, rejecting the said Criminal Revision
Application.
14. The Petitioner filed Transfer Application No.3 of 2022 before the
Court of Sessions to transfer C.C. No.2575/SS/2020 from the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai to any other Court.
The Petitioner preferred transfer Application No. 5 of 2022 to transfer
Criminal Case No. 441/SS/2021 to any other Court. Vide order dated 9 th
March 2022, the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Sessions Court,
Mumbai rejected both applications.
15. The Petitioner preferred application for exemption from appearance
under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.. Vide order dated 22 nd March 2022, the
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 8
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
application was rejected. The Petitioner filed application in Case No.
2575/SS/2020 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to record statement of witness.
Vide order dated 24th March 2023, the learned Magistrate rejected the
application.
16. Thus, the complaint was filed by Petitioner on 16 th September 2021
after rejection of Criminal Revision Application No.77 of 2021 challenging
order of process by Sessions Court and order dated 9 th September 2021
passed by this Court rejecting application for quashing the proceedings.
17. The complaint was filed by Petitioner after the period of more than
five years after the alleged incident.
18. The Court of competent jurisdiction has stayed the proceedings
initiated by Petitioner against Respondent No.2. The first case has
proceeded first. The learned Magistrate has recorded the complainant's
evidence in first case i.e. case filed by Respondent No.2 against the
Petitioner. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The
case had proceeded to next level. The Revision Application preferred by
Respondent No.2 is pending. It cannot be assumed that it would be
dismissed.
19. Thus, it is ample clear that, the complaint of Petitioner was filed on
16th September 2021 after initiating proceedings challenging proceedings
initiated by Respondent No.2. The Petitioner filed applications for transfer
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 9
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
of complaints. After adverse orders were passed by Courts, the present
petition was filed on 29th September 2023. It is contended by the Petitioner
that, genesis of the incident is the meeting, which was held in March 2016.
The complaint filed by Respondent No.2 had proceeded with the trial. The
evidence is already recorded. The Revision Application challenging process
order against Respondent No.2 is pending before the Sessions Court in
respect of the proceeding initiated by the Petitioner. At this stage, the relief
sought in this case cannot be granted.
20. Learned Advocate for Petitioner has relied upon several decisions in
support of the submission that the cross cases are required to be tried
together and one of the after by same. There is no debate about the law laid
down by the Apex Court in several decisions. However, in the fact of this
case it is apparent that, the trial in the complaint initiated by Respondent
No.2 had already commenced and reached at final stage. Petitioner
preferred this petition at belated stage. After resorting to remedies
challenging proceedings against Petitioner, the complaint was filed by
Petitioner against Respondent No.2. Thereafter the present application was
preferred on the grounds as stated herein above. After filing the complaint
belatedly, the Petitioner had contended that, both cases are to be tried
simultaneously. Considering this factual matrix as stated above, no relief as
sought in this petition can be granted.
Dnyaneshwar Ethape, P.A. 10
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 03:20:24 :::
1-WP(ST)-130-2024.doc
ORDER
Criminal Writ Petition (ST.) No.130 of 2024 stands
rejected and disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
