Delhi District Court
Pawan Khera vs . Arvind Kejriwal on 26 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 81/13
Pawan Khera Vs. Arvind Kejriwal
26.10.2013
Present : Sh. Ajay Kalra, Ld. Proxy Counsel for Sh. Mehmood Pracha for
complainant.
Sh. Rishikesh Bharti, Ld. Counsel for accused with accused.
Complainant is absent and is exempted on application for today.
Accused has been summoned by my Ld. Predecessor for offence
punishable u/s. 500 IPC vide order dt. 31.1.2013.
After appearance Ld. Counsel for accused objected to locus standi
of complainant to file the present case. Therefore, arguments were heard on
this aspect on the last date.
Facts, very briefly, may be noted here.
Complainant states himself to be Officer on Special Duty/Political Secretary to the Chief Minister Smt. Sheila Dikshit for over 14 years. Accused Arvind Kejriwal made some comments in a T.V. interview which was telecast on Total TV. The accused used the word ¨DALAL¨ in regard to Smt. Sheila Dikshit thereby imputing that she has been indulging in CC No. 81/13 Pawan Khera Vs. Arvind Kejriwal Page 1 of 4 brokerage (DALALI) of some companies. Complainant alleged that by use of this word with respect to Smt. Sheila Dikshit, he was also defamed as he is closely associated with her being OSD to her.
Ld. Counsel for accused argued that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present case as the word was not said with respect to him and was rather against Smt. Sheila Dikshit. Ld. Counsel submitted that complainant does not come within the meaning of ¨some person aggrieved¨ as contained in Sec.199(1) Cr.PC. He stressed that as complainant cannot be called a person aggrieved by offence, complainant could not file present complaint case alleging offence u/s. 500 IPC. Ld. Counsel relied upon 2002 Lawsuit (Bom) 1150 titled ¨Balasaheb Keshav Thackeray Vs. State of Maharashtra¨.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant repelled all the contentions. He highlighted that my Ld. Predecessor has already discussed this issue at the time of passing summoning order dt. 31.1.2013. He submitted that accused cannot now challenge locus of complainant. He argued that this will amount to review of summoning order which is not permissible as present case is a summons trial case. Ld. Counsel relied upon AIR 2004 SC 4674 Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & Ors.
Ld. Counsel for accused replied that after appearance, an accused CC No. 81/13 Pawan Khera Vs. Arvind Kejriwal Page 2 of 4 in a summons trial case can always take a defence and this is one of the defences of the accused.
Sec. 199 (1) Cr.PC provides as under:
¨No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:¨ Thus Sec.199(1) Cr.PC limits the right to file complaint case for offence punishable u/s. 500 IPC (as the same falls under Chapter XXI IPC) to some person aggrieved by the offence.
Unlike other offences, only some person which is aggrieved by the offence of defamation can file a complaint case. In the present case contention of accused is that the complainant does not fall in the category of ¨some person aggrieved by the offence¨. Thus accused challenges the locus standi of complainant to file this complaint case.
Having heard Ld. Counsels for the parties, I am of the view that locus of complainant to file the present case cannot be decided at this stage. Without framing notice of accusation, and without conducting trial, no decision can be made on this issue. As contended on behalf of accused himself that it is one of his defences, the decision whether this defence is successful or not can only be made after trial and not before that.
If the accused believes that he has been summoned wrongly, he CC No. 81/13 Pawan Khera Vs. Arvind Kejriwal Page 3 of 4 has to challenge the summoning order. This court cannot recall the summons issued against him. As held authoritatively in Adalat Prasad's case (supra), review of summoning order is not permissible.
No help can be drawn by accused from Balasaheb's case (supra), as at this stage locus of complainant cannot be decided. In that case also, the petitioner who was an accused had approached the Hon'ble Bombay High Court for quashing of complaint.
Thus question of locus standi of complaint will be decided later. Prima facie case is made out for serving notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.PC for the offence punishable u/s. 500 IPC against accused. Ld. Counsel for accused seeks short adjournment submitting that accused wants to give detailed statement regarding defence. He submits main counsel who is conducting the case is not available today. Ld. Proxy Counsel for complainant also submits main counsel for complainant is also not available.
In these circumstances, put up for serving notice on 28.10.2013 at 2.00 p.m. (SANJAY BANSAL) CMM/Shahdara/Delhi 26.10.2013 CC No. 81/13 Pawan Khera Vs. Arvind Kejriwal Page 4 of 4