Delhi District Court
M/S Fiitjee Ltd Through Its Authorised ... vs Nitin Jain And Ors on 26 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010073202023
Cr Rev/292/2023
M/S FIITJEE LTD (THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL) Vs.
NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
M/s FIITJEE LTD.
(Through its Authorized Representative)
Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal
Having its Registered Office at
29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi-110016 ................ Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Nitin Jain
S/o Naveen Jain
R/o House No. 589, Sector-21-D
Faridabad-121001
2. Naveen Jain
R/o House no. 589, Sector-21-D
Faridabad-121001
3. Kumkum Jain
W/o Naveen Jain
R/o House no. 589, Sector-21-D
Faridabad-121001
4. Mr. Jaideep Bose
Editor-in-Chief Times of India,
Address: 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO, New Delhi-110002
5. Mr. Bodhisatva Ganguli Digitally
signed by
Editor-in-Chief Times of India,
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28
04:35:34
+0530
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023
M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR
AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
Page no. 1 of 18
Address: 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO, New Delhi-110002
6. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. / Times Group
Publisher Times of India New Website & Economic
Times
Address: 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO, New Delhi-110002
7. Ms. Indu Jain
Chairperson, Benett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. /Times
Group
Address: 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO, New Delhi-110002
8. Mr. Samir Jain
Vice Chairperson, Benett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.
Times Group
Address: 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO, New Delhi-110002
9. Mr. Vineet Jain
Managing Director, Benett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.
Times Group
Address: 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO, New Delhi-110002
10. Mr. Raj Jain
CEO, Benett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. / Times Group
Address: 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO, New Delhi-110002
11. State ............Respondents
And
DLST010073252023
Cr Rev/293/2023
M/S FIITJEE LTD Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
Digitally
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28
04:35:39
AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. +0530
Page no. 2 of 18
M/s FIITJEE Ltd.
Through its Authorised Representative
Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal
Having its Registered Office at
29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi-110016 ................ Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Nitin Jain
S/o Naveen Jain
R/o House nO. 589, Sector 21-D,
Faridabad-121001
2. Naveen Jain
R/o House nO. 589, Sector 21-D,
Faridabad-121001
3. Kumkum Jain
W/o Naveen Jain
R/o House nO. 589, Sector 21-D,
Faridabad-121001
4. Mr. Rajesh Ramchandran
Editor Outlook India
Address: AB-10 Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi--110029
5. Outlook India Publishing Pvt Ltd.
Address: AB-10 Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029
6. State ................. Respondent
And
DLST010073312023
Cr Rev/294/2023
M/S FIITJEE LTD (THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE SH. VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL) Vs.
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023
M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR Digitally signed
by
AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK
Date:
Page no. 3 of 18 2025.04.28
04:35:41 +0530
NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
M/s FIITJEE Ltd.
(Through its Authorised Representative
Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal)
Having its Registered Office at
29-A, Kalu Sarai, Sarvapriya Vihar,
New Delhi-110016 ................ Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Nitin Jain
S/o Naveen Jain
R/o House nO. 589, Sector 21-D,
Faridabad-121001
2. Naveen Jain
R/o House nO. 589, Sector 21-D,
Faridabad-121001
3. Kumkum Jain
W/o Naveen Jain
R/o House nO. 589, Sector 21-D,
Faridabad-121001
4. Deccan Herald
Address: 75, M. G. Road, Post Box no. 5331,
Bengaluru-560001
Also At;
516, Indraprakash Building, Barakahmba Road,
New Delhi-110001
5. Mr. K. N. Tilak Kumar
Editor-in-Chief Deccan Herald
Address: 75, M. G. Road, Post Box no. 5331,
Bengaluru-560001
Also At;
516, Indraprakash Building, Barakahmba Road,
New Delhi-110001
6. The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd.
Publisher Deccan Herald
Address: 75, M. G. Road, Post Box no. 5331,
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 Digitally
M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28
04:35:46
+0530
Page no. 4 of 18
Bengaluru-560001
Also At;
516, Indraprakash Building, Barakahmba Road,
New Delhi-110001
7. State ................. Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.08.2023
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 22.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 26.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of three Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 CrPC, whereby, the order dated 12.04.2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-06, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CT No. 2820/2019, CT No. 2343/2019 & CT No. 2349/2019, all titled as 'M/s FIITJEE Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain & Ors.' have been challenged by the revisionist as vide said order, the complaints filed by it were dismissed.
2. Before moving to the merits of the present revision pe-
titions, at the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present revisions have been preferred by the revisionist, af- ter delay of nine days. Revisionist has filed a separate ap- plication explaining the reasons for delay in filing of present revision petitions. It is stated that delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to unavoidable circum- stances. I do not find any deliberate attempt on part of the revisionist in avoiding the filing of revision petitions. Hence, the condonation applications are allowed and delay stands condoned.
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR Digitally signed by AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.04.28 Page no. 5 of 18 04:35:50 +0530
3. The Ld. MM has noted the factual position as under :
"The facts in brief as put forth by the complainant is that the complainant company is established company since last 30 years in the filed of IIT, JEE, competitive exam preparation for students. Accused no.1 Nitin Jain was a student of FIITJEE Ltd. from 2007 to 2009. He got more than 90% scholarship in institute. He got All India Rank 1 in IITJEE/2009. Initially respondents gave all the credit for success of Nitin Jain. They took the assistance of Nitin Jain in conducting various seminar for motivating the student across Delhi. On the insistence of father of Nitin Jain, a laptop was given to Nitin Jain by the company in appreciation of his success. His father repeatedely demanded more and more money for taking part in seminar which the company refused. He then started making false allegation against the company. Thereafter, they filed a civil suit against the complainant company i.e. CS(OS) 1430/2011 for injunction and demanded compensation. The same is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The order dt. 27.04.2018 was passed in the said civil suit that the mediation had failed and the Counsels were asked to satisfy about the maintainability of the suit and counter claim. However, accused persons got it published in news paper namely Times Of India that the complainant company had been reprimanded and have been asked to pay 5 crore rupees for damages and also that complainant company had used the photographs and videos on various porn sites. Due to said publication in the e-news papers, the reputation of company had harmed and they have suffered losses. They have also lost huge admissions of students after publication."
4. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the complainant sought prosecution of the respondents/ proposed accused for offences under Section 384/511/500 IPC. Trial Court record reveals that the revisionist examined Vinod Agarwal as CW1 in support of its allegations in pre-summoning evidence. Upon hearing the arguments, the Ld. MM, vide impugned order, dismissed the complaint of the revisionist, finding no sufficient ground to summon the respondents/ proposed accused. The relevant observations of Ld. MM are being reproduced for the sake of convenience:-
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM Page no. 6 of 18 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 04:35:54 +0530 "It is the contention of Ld. counsel for complainant that by publication in news paper Times of India against them, respondents had tried to extort money from the complainant and had also defamed them. Complainant had never been pulled up by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dt. 27.04.2018. Further no such interviews of respondent no.1 was published on porn sites. Perusal of the publication dt. 02.05.2018 shows that there is article published regarding FIIT JEE coaching institute wherein it is mentioned that, "The Delhi High Court had pulled up renowned coaching Institute FIIT JEE for not willing to settle the claim of IIT Joint Entrance Exam Topper". The said article as is published in Times Of India is no where depicting any false allegations as stated to have been leveled against them. Rather as per order dt. 27.04.2018 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the settlement between the parties have actually failed. It is clear from the order that FIIT JEE had failed to enter into settlement with the respondent no.1 and therefore on the said claim reporting has been made in the newspaper. In the case of Chief Election Commissioner of India v.
M.R. Vijayabhaskar & Ors (2021), Hon'ble Supreme Court had ruled that the media has right to report observations made during the course of hearings (Court proceedings).
In daily newspapers, we see there are publication of registration of crimes, filing of court cases, progress of investigation, arrest of persons etc. These articles are published to bring in public domain about the happening of events across country for the purpose of imparting knowledge thereof. The reporting made in Times of India in publication dated 02.05.2018 does not appear to be per se defamatory. It merely appears to be reporting out of the Court proceedings. Further it also no where appears that said reporting has been made at the instance of respondents no.1. Further elements of attempt to extortion are also missing in the case. The case filed by respondent no.1 before Hon'ble High Court is a separate lawful proceeding against complainant. The question of damages had to be decided by said forum. Said proceeding is still pending before Hon'ble High Court and cannot be stated for the purpose of extortion.
Thus, there is no prima facie ground for proceeding u/s 384/511 IPC and 500 IPC.
Thus the present complaint is dismissed u/s 203 CrPC."
5. Revisionist has filed the instant revision assailing the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 on various grounds, which can be summarized as under:-
Digitally Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR 2025.04.28 04:36:01 +0530 AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
Page no. 7 of 18 i. that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the offending article has published unsubstantiated allegations/ pleadings made by respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 in Civil Suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, bearing CS (OS) No. 1430/2011.
ii. that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the contents of the offending articles are not reflected in the judicial order dated 27.04.2018 and the same have been misquoted by the respondent no. 4.
iii. that the Ld. MM has wrongly held that there is no false allegation in the offending article as prima facie it is apparent that the allegations of 'posting pictures on porn sites' have been taken from the pleadings of the respondent no. 1,2 & 3 and the same have not been substantiated as the civil suit is still pending adjudication.
iv. that the Ld. MM failed to consider that the same cannot be published by the respondent no. 4 without the connivance of respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 as these form the pleadings of the pending civil suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court bearing no. CS (OS) 1430/2011 and are not available to the public.
v. that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the only source of information regarding contents of pleadings Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 Digitally M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 Page no. 8 of 18 04:36:04 +0530 could have been respondent no. 1,2 & 3 as the order of Hon'ble High Court is not even dealing with the averments made in civil suit pending before that court.
vi. that the impugned order is based on misreading of facts in so far as contents of the news articles are blatantly defamatory and malicious and shows that it had been prepared, published with active connivance and knowledge of the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3.
vii. that the respondent no. 5 is an active publisher of respondent no. 4 and are responsible for perpetuating the defamatory material online on their website against the revisionist/ complainant company.
viii. that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that all the averments in regard to the defamatory material have been mentioned in the complaint and the pre-requisites of section 499 of IPC are present and made out in the complaint.
ix. that the impugned order is totally unjust, arbitrary, untenable, has been passed without the application of judicial mind and is liable to be set-aside.
6. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued on the similar line of grounds as taken in the instant revision petitions. It was forcefully argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as Ld. Trial Court wrongly Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM Page no. 9 of 18 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 04:36:08 +0530 came to the conclusion that the publication dated 01.05.2018 does not appear to be per se defamatory. On the strength of these arguments, revisionist seeks setting aside of the impugned order and non-summoning of respondents.
7. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon judgments, M. P. Mansinghka Vs. Dainik Pratah Kaal and ors. M. Cr. C. No. 7890/2013 decided on 15.02.2018, Pritam Chand alias Pritam Singh Vs. Dr. Kamal Saini CRMC no. 758/2017 decided on 23.12.2023 and Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Yohan Tengra & Ors decided on 05.06.2023 in suit (L) No. 33253 of 2022.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1, 2 and 3, and Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Times group argued that there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order and the Ld. Trial court has rightly dismissed the complaints. It was argued that the impugned order was passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case including the testimony of complainant's witness. It was further argued that Ld. Magistrate rightly observed that there is no sufficient material on record to proceed further against the proposed accused for the offences alleged against them by the revisionist. It was argued that allegations as leveled by revisionist is frivolous in nature and as such, no offence is made out against the respondents. It was submitted that the Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. Date:
2025.04.28 04:36:12 Page no. 10 of 18 +0530 present revision petition is misconceived and therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard the arguments and also perused the Trial Court Records.
10. In the matter of Taron Mohan v. State & Anr 2021 SCC OnLine Del 312 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as under:-
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."
11. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123 observed as under :
".....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible.The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision issought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR Digitally AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Page no. 11 of 18 PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 04:36:27 +0530 erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where thedecision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
In the above case also conviction of the accused was recorded, the High Court set aside the order of conviction by substituting its own view.This Court set aside the High Court's order holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its views and that too without any legal basis."
12. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, this court in its revisional jurisdiction, is not expected to substitute its own view with that of court below unless the order passed by Ld. Trial Court suffers from jurisdictional error or patent infirmity/illegality.
13. It appears that the revisionist had filed complaints against the respondents before the learned Trial Magistrate alleging therein that the proposed accused no. 4 to 10 in connivance with accused no. 1 2 and 3, with an intention to harm the reputation of complainant and to lower the image, esteem and respect of complainant in eyes of public, has published the said article in the news website. The complainant has alleged that the proposed accused have deliberately made imputations against the complainant for illegally extorting money from it. Further, the witness examined as CW-1 by the complainant has stated that the complainant, it management and staff as well as faculty was shocked upon being informed that certain electronic media had published absolutely false and distorted reporting regarding the proceedings that took Digitally Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 04:36:31 +0530 AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
Page no. 12 of 18 place on 27.04.2018. before Hon'ble High Court.
14. However, in order to constitute an offence of criminal defamation, the explanation 4 appended to section 499 IPC makes it mandatory that such imputation made by the accused person must lower the moral or intellectual character of that person or the character of that person in respect of his caste or his calling, or lowers the credit of that person or causes it to be believed that body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful, in the estimation of others. The provision of the law is very much specific in this regard u/s 499 IPC, which reads as under :-
S.499 Defamation- "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2 - It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3 - An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4 - No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state,
- or in a state generally considered as disgraceful".
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 04:36:34 +0530 AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
Page no. 13 of 18
15. It is worthwhile to mention here that the CW1 examined by the complainant as part of pre- summoning evidence has not deposed to this effect that the reputation of the complainant was indeed lowered in his estimation.
CW-1 has stated in his testimony that two faculty members i.e. Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Brij Bhushan approached him and informed that they want to resign from their posts from the complainant company as they are outraged by the allegations against the complainant in the leading newspaper. Also, certain parents and student of various centers approached the manager of the complainant company to state that the reputation of the company had been lowered in the eyes of said students and parents due to defamatory article published by accused no. 4 and 5. However, the complainant has not examined Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Brij Bhushan and also the parents and student of various centers in the eyes of whom the reputation of company is said to have been lowered.
16. The complainant has not produced any witness to the effect that the reputation of the company was lowered in the estimation of any other person directly or indirectly due to the imputation made by the accused persons as aforesaid. In absence of such evidence regarding lowering of its estimation in the eyes of others, the complainant's claim of having been defamed criminally by all the accused persons failed to stand upon its own legs.
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 Digitally M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 Page no. 14 of 18 04:36:38 +0530
17. Further, the news article speaks of the allegations made by the plaintiff in the suit CS (OS) 1430/2011 and not that the same are the observation of the court. The only observation of court published in the news article is regarding the settlement, which in no way is defamatory. Suffice it would be to say that the said article cannot be termed as defamatory so as to constitute the offence of defamation. Otherwise also in the article itself, it is mentioned that the source of news is PTI. PTI has not been made party nor it was summoned as witness to verify whether it was the source of news article or it was published by the respondent/ publisher on its own or in connivance with other respondents.
18. It is noticed that there is no iota of allegation to substantiate that the respondents / proposed accused have made any imputation against revisionist /complainant for illegally extorting money from it.
19. Furthermore, the fact that a civil case has already been filed by the proposed accused persons / respondent no.1, 2 and 3, makes it apparent that the present complaint case is merely an afterthought and is a result of revenge only on the part of the complainant.
20. In the facts and circumstances as revealed on record, there is no sufficient material on record to proceed further against the respondent/proposed accused for the offences Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 Page no. 15 of 18 04:36:42 +0530 alleged against them by the complainant.
21. In the instant case, as evident from record, Ld. Magistrate while narrating (in detail) the facts, passed a well reasoned detailed order, thereby dismissing the complaint of revisionist finding no sufficient ground for proceedings against the respondents and therefore, this court cannot and rather ought not substitute its own view with that of Ld. Magistrate (while exercising its revisional jurisdiction) and thereby arriving at a different conclusion. This court is of the view that the Ld. MM has provided clear and cogent reasons for not summoning the respondents and it is clearly not for this Court to second guess the decision.
22. It is a settled law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods & Anr Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128, wherein it was observed:-
"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused.
Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
Page no. 16 of 18 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 04:36:45 +0530 Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused".
23. Similar are the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindranatha Bajpe vs Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. & Others, Crl Appeal No.1047- 1048/2021 dated 27th September 2021. If the factual matrix of the present case is tested upon the touchstone of the principles as laid down in said cases, I am of the considered view that no ground for summoning of respondent was made in the instant case and therefore the view as taken by Ld. MM cannot be faulted with.
24. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has failed to point out any patent illegality/ infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed. The judgment relied upon on behalf of revisionist does not come to its aid in the factual matrix of present case.
25. With these observations, it is held that there is no patent illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The instant revision petitions are dismissed accordingly.
26. One copy of judgment under signature of undersigned be placed in Crl. Rev. No. 292/2023 and digitally signed copies be placed in the other revision petitions. Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR PATHAK Date:
2025.04.28 AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
04:36:48 +0530 Page no. 17 of 18
27. TCR be sent back to Ld Trial Court along with copy of this judgment.
28. Revision files be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.04.28 04:36:53 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 18 signed pages) Cr Rev 292/2023, Cr Rev 293/2023 and Cr Rev 294/2023 M/S FIITJEE LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SH VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. NITIN JAIN AND ORS.
Page no. 18 of 18