Vaishnavi Gaddam vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1860 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.4567 OF 2023

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')

by the petitioner-Accused No.11 to quash the proceedings

against them in C.C. No.1592 of 2022 pending on the file of

learned Hon'ble III Additonal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad. The offences alleged against her are under

Sections 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused

the record.

3. The petitioner is questioning the order dated

20.02.2023 of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance

and issuance of summons to the petitioner to appear and

face criminal trial for the aforesaid offences. The said

cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the

basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent.

However, the learned Magistrate passed docket order on 20.02.2023

taking cognizance against the petitioners which reads as follows:

"Perused entire record. The contents of the complaint coupled with the statements of witnesses number 1 to 4 and bank transactions altogether prima facie shows that, the accused No.1 to 13 with an intnetion to harm complainant (or having reason to believe that reputation of the complainant will be harmed) publised imputations concerning complainant and caused defamation within the meaning of section 500 IPC. Hence, cognizance is taken for the offence under Section 499 r/w. 500 IPC. Hence, issue summons to accused call on 20.03.2023.

4. Prime Facie, the order of the learned Magistrate is

contrary, as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sunil Bharti Mitthal Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation1 in Criminal Appeal Nos.34 to 37 of 2015

dated 09.01.2015, wherein it is held as follows:

"52. A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609

53. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."

5. Further, in the Judgment of P.S.Meherhomji Vs

K.T.Vijay Kumar and Others2 in Crl.A.No.2211 of 2014

dated 14.10.2014, it is held as

"13. Indisputably, judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private

(2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 788

complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly.

14. It is equally well settled that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court and to quash the proceeding instituted on complaint but such power could be exercised only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of power Under Section 482."

6. As the learned Magistrate has not narrated any

reasons in the order for summoning the accused, the orders

have to be set aside. Further the issuance of process to

face criminal trial is a serious issue and the Magistrate

cannot order summoning of the accused without giving any

reasons and what prompted the accused to take cognizance

on the basis of facts of the case. Since the reasons are

lacking in the order for taking cognizance and issuing

summons, the said docket order dated 20.02.2023 is set

aside. However, this order will not preclude the learned

Magistrate from taking cognizance by giving appropriate

reasons.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.04.2023 SHA/DSV