Delhi District Court
Puneet Mittal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) (R-1) on 21 December, 2015
Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (PC ACT)-06, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 56/2015
Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015
Puneet Mittal
S/o Sh. P.P. Mittal
R/o B-333, New Panchwati,
G.T. Road, Ghaziabad. .....Revisionist
Versus
1. State (NCT of Delhi) (R-1)
2. M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (R-2)
A-37, Sector-60, NOIDA.
3. Pradeep Srivastava, Reporter (R-3)
C/o M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.
A-37, Sector-60, NOIDA
4. Ram Avtar Bansal (R-4)
S/o Unknown
R/o 28-K, Bansal Kunj, Behari Nagar,
PS Kotwali, Ghaziabad.
5. Ved Prakash Garg (R-5)
S/o Late Basheshar Dayal,
C/o M/s Nanak Chand Murari Lal,
Shop No. 5, Ghantaghar, Ghaziabad.
6. Praveen Kumar Kansal, (R-6)
R/o 105, MohallaAfganan, Delhi Gate,
PS Kotwali, Ghaziabad.
7. Nikhil Garg S/o Sh. Naresh Chand Garg, (R-7)
PS Kotwali, Ghaziabad.
8. Deepak Garg S/o Unknown (R-8)
R/o 111, Nai Basti, PS Kotwali,
Ghaziabad.
9. Ms. Shama Garg D/o Sh. Ved Prakash Garg, (R-9)
R/o 111, Nai Basti, PS Kotwali,
Ghaziabad. .....Respondents
Instituted on : 27th November 2015
Argued on : 21st December 2015
Decided on : 21st December 2015
ORDER
1. This revision U/S 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 15 th September 2015, passed by the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Malik, Ld Metropolitan Magistrate (MM-04), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby a complaint case (CC No.678/1) U/S 200 Cr.P.C has been dismissed.
C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 1 Of 10
Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015
2. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh. P.P. Mittal and Sh.Prashant Kumar Mittal, Learned counsels, appearing for revisionist, Sh. Bhavya Sethi, Learned Counsel for R-2 & R-3 and Sh. V.K. Mishra, Learned Counsel for R-4 & R-9 and have perused the trial court record.
3. In brief, facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are as under:
On 24th July 2013 a complaint case U/S 200 Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant (revisionist herein) against accused persons. Accused no.1 (R-2 i.e. M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.) is a media house and accused no.2 (R-3 I.e. Pradeep Srivastava) is reporter. R-3 to R-8 are the private persons who were alleged to have conspired with R-2 & R-3 in commission of the offence of defamation U/S 499/500 IPC. Sh.Mittal, Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist Puneet Mittal is husband of Rashmi Mittal and that litigation is going on between Puneet Mittal and his wife Rashmi Mittal. Nikhil Garg (R-7) is brother in law of Puneet Mittal. Shama Garg (R-9) is the sister in law of Puneet Mittal. Deepak Garg (R-8) is brother in law of Puneet Mittal. Ved Prakash Garg (R-5) is father of R-9. Ram Avtar Bansal is (R-4) and Praveen Kumar is (R-6).
4. It is alleged that on 21 st August 2010 at about 09:30 pm, R-4 to R-9 had come at the resident of revisionist and had taken away his wife Rashmi Mittal to her parental house and Rashmi Mittal was got admitted in the hospital at District Hospital, Ghaziabad. On 22nd August 2010, Nikhil Garg (R-7) lodged FIR at PS Kotwali, Ghaziabad U/S 498A/323 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Puneet Mittal (revisionist). It is alleged that on 23 rd August 2010 in Top 10 news, at item no. 8, the Star News Channel of R-1 flashed defamatory news. News channel reported C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 2 Of 10 Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015 and published wrong news. In the news as well as clipping it was published that Rashmi Mittal was given electric shocks for six months and that FIR against the husband and in laws was lodged and further that husband and in laws of Rashmi Mittal were absconding.
5. It is submitted that there are no allegations of giving electric shocks in the FIR No. 522/10 registered on 22nd August 2010 and secondly it is submitted that FIR was only against Puneet Mittal and not against any of his family member and wrongly published/flashed in the Star News on 23 rd August 2010. Legal notice dated 16 th September 2010 was served to M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.(R-2) and notice (Ex.CW-1/7) to Star News Private Ltd. Dated 27 th September 2010 whereby they were asked to furnish the basis of the said news and identity of the reporter and for compensation of the loss of the revisionist and his family members reputation and for preserving the soft item for production in the court. Notice was initially replied vide reply (Ex.CW-1/9) dated 29 th October 2010. In the reply, it was stated that the news item was based on the FIR registered with the police against Puneet Mittal and others and was based on the facts available from the police record & That there was no falsity in the said news as alleged and further more, news item was a subject matter of great public interest as it was with respect to harassment of a woman for dowry. It was stated that news channel had reported truth substantiated by the fact in discharge of its constitutional duty.
6. On receipt of the complaint, Ld trial court listed the matter for pre- summoning evidence. Revisionist was examined as CW-1. Nand Gopal Aggarwal who was known to Sh. P.K. Mittal, advocate, brother of the complainant was examined as PW-2. On 20th December 2013, Sh. Rajesh Malik, Ld MM, C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 3 Of 10 Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015 predecessor of trial court summoned only M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (R-2) and Pradeep Srivastava (R-3) reporter for commission of offence U/S 499/500 IPC and found that there was no sufficient material on record to summon R-4 to R-9.
7. Revisionist preferred a revision against said order dated 20 th December 2013 wherein trial court found no ground to summon accused no.3 to 8 (R-4 to R-9 herein). Vide order dated 29th May 2014, Ld ASJ set aside the order dated 20 th December 2015 qua accused no. 3 to 8 with the observation that Ld trial court shall further inquire into the matter as regards the person who briefed the reporter or brought him to the hospital or as to where else reporter was briefed or on the point of conspiracy. Ld ASJ further noted that the proceedings qua R-2 and R-3 shall remain stayed only till the conclusion of the inquiry by the Ld trial court and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 6 th June 2014. On 6th June 2014, Sh.Sanjay Sharma, counsel for R-3 appeared and the Ld trial court noted that A-1 and A-2 (R-2 & R-3) were summoned.
8. During further proceeding/inquiry conducted by the Ld trial court, statement of the revisionist Puneet Mittal on 21 st February 2015 was recorded wherein he stated that he had no further evidence available with him or in his control and whatever oral or documentary evidence he had, had already been led and he close his pre- summoning evidence. Thereafter, court heard the arguments submitted on behalf of revisionist and vide impugned order dated 15 th September 2015 dismissed the complaint U/S 200 Cr.P.C and consigned the file to record room.
9. Sh. P.P. Mittal, Ld.counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that appellate court while remanding the case back to make further enquiry qua R-4 to R-
C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 4 Of 10
Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015
9 had directed the parties to appear before the ld. Trial court, but it is submitted that R-4 to R-9 had not appeared before the ld. Trial court. Had they appeared before ld. Trial court, trial court could have examined them u/s 311 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that in the complaint, averments were made by the complainant that at the instance of A3 to A8, the reporter and the media house i.e. A1 & A2 in conspiracy got flashed/aired absolutely baseless news for making demand of dowry. It is submitted that in para 4 of the complaint, it is alleged that the accused had reason to believe that imputation is baseless and false and will not only harm the reputation of the complainant and his family member but also influence the investigation of the case. It is argued that ld. Trial court erred in holding that in the complaint, complainant had not leveled any specific allegations against A3 to A8. It is submitted that vide order dated 29 th May 2014, ld. ASJ while remanding the case back, Ld Sessions Court had directed ld. trial court to further inquire into the matter "as regards the persons who briefed the reporter, brought him to the hospital or where else the reporter was briefed or on the point of conspiracy."
10. Ld counsel submitted that trial court had not conducted the requisite inquiry and that on 6th June 2014 Sh. Sanjay Sharma counsel who was appearing for A1 & A2 before ld. Trial court had sought time to clarify regarding appearance of A3 to A8 before the ld. Trial court and counsels were directed to get clarification from the Sessions Court. Counsel for both the parties admittedly had not sought any such clarifications. Perusal of the trial court record shows that on 21 st February 2015 Sh.P.K. Mittal ld. Counsel, appearing for the complainant, submitted that A-3 to A-8 were to remain present during the enquiry in view of order dated 29.05.2014 passed by ld. Revisional Court. Ld. Trial court noted that it was clear that proceedings against C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 5 Of 10 Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015 accused No. 1 & 2 were stayed by the ld. Sessions Court and enquiry was to be conducted qua accused No. 3 to 8 only, hence presence of A1 & A2 was stayed in terms of order passed by ld. Session Court. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for inquiry in consonance with para 15 of the order dated 29.05.2014 passed by ld. Revisional Court and on 21.06.2015, matter was adjourned for pre-summonning evidence.
11. On the same day i.e. 21.02.2015, Sh. Puneet Mittal, complainant made a statement to the effect that whatever oral and documentary evidence he had, was already adduced, during pre-summoning evidence and there was no other evidence available with him and he closed his pre-summoning evidence. It is the matter of record that while pre-summoning evidence, the complainant or its counsel had not prayed for recording any evidence of any person who was aware about the facts or can throw light on the facts and there is nothing on record to show that any request or prayer by the complainant for enquiry by any other authority.
12. As regards respondent no. 4 to 9, Sh. V.K.Mishra ld. Counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that averments made in the complaint ought to have been taken as correct and the truth-full-ness of the said averments has not been gone into by the Court at this stage of summoning. Per contra, Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of R-4 & R-9 submitted that there was no infirmity in order qua R-4 & R-9. He drew attention of the court towards revision petitioner in ground No.V, wherein revisionist has referred a judgment reported as Fiona Shrikhande Vs.State of Maharashtra1, wherein it was held that:
"that law as regards issuance of process in criminal cases is well settled. At the complaint state, the magistrate is merely concerned with the 1 AIR 2014 SC 957, C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 6 Of 10 Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015 allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima-facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the magistrate to enquiry into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited in the sense that the magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima-facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. The magistrate is not expected to embark upon a detailed discussion of merits or demerits of the case but only consider the inherent probabilities apparent on the statement made in the complaint."
13. It is submitted that complainant has not placed on record any material to show that R-4 to R9 had defamed the complainant and his family members. Ld. Counsel also drew attention of the court towards penultimate para of the impugned order, which reads as under:
"The court has gone through entire complaint, entire evidence including the video CD and transcript thereof but the complainant has not levelled any specific allegations against any of the accused No.3 to accused No.8. Even in the video CD, except accused No.2, no person has uttered even single word so as to constitute even iota of act towards the alleged defamation against the complainant".
It is submitted that ld. Trial court had gone through the entire evidence, including the video CD and transcript thereof, but could not find any specific allegations against A- 3 to A-8.
14. In the factual matrix noted above and also in view of the fact that after remand of the case on earlier occasion in this case, the revisionist on 21 st February 2015 had made a statement that he had no further evidence available with him or in his control this court is not inclined to accept further request of the Ld counsel appearing for the petitioner to remand the case again to the Ld Magistrate for making further inquiry regarding the fact as to who had briefed the reporter or brought the C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 7 Of 10 Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015 reporter to the hospital or where else the reporter was briefed in order to show the conspiracy between R-4 to R-9 and R-2 & R-3.
15. For an offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC, three essential ingredients are required to be fulfilled:-
1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
2. Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations.
3. Imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
16. Thus, main ingredient of the offence of defamation is 'making or publishing of the imputation'. It is true that at this stage court has not to go into the truthfulness, but court has to prima facie satisfy itself about material allegations against the accused sought to be summoned to face trial for a criminal offence. It is not the case of revisionist that R-4 to R-9 themselves made or published by words or by any other mode. His case is that at the instance of R-4 to R-9 and on their disclosures R-2 and R-3 reported and published defamatory statements. To attract offence of conspiracy punishable u/s 120B IPC, prima facie meeting of mind between R-4 to R-9 and R-2 & R-3 was required to be shown. Only mentioning legal language in the complaint and/or during pre-summoning evidence to the effect that accused No. 3 to 8 were acting in furtherance of their common intention is not enough. On considering the record, this court is in agreement with the view taken by the Ld trial court. There are no allegation that any of R-4 to R-9 had spoken or uttered or published any imputation against the complainant or his family members. It is not also the case of R-2 and R-3 that they were briefed or brought to the hospital by R-4 to R-9. If at any stage, during the trial of R-2 and R-3 any additional facts regarding the role of any C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 8 Of 10 Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015 other person including that of R-4 to R-9 appears, the court is empowered to summon the said person. Prima facie there is no sufficient and satisfactory material to proceed further against R-4 to R-9.
17. Now, this court adverts to the position as regards R2 and R-3. This court finds that there is error apparent on the face of record, as regards dismissal of the complaint case against M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Accused no.1 (R-2 herein) and Pradeep Srivastava, accused no.2 (R-3 herein) in view of the fact that vide order dated 20.12.2013, they were summoned to face trial by the Ld MM. Thereafter, complainant had preferred a revision petition, in view of the fact that the remaining respondents were not summoned by the ld. Trial Court and then, vide order dated 29.05.2014, ld. ASJ while passing the order qua other respondents stayed the proceedings qua A-1 & A-2, till the conclusion of enquiry. Said enquiry stood concluded on 21.02.2015, when the complainant had closed pre- summoning evidence and in any case, on 15.09.2015 when the court finally found that there was nothing on record to summon accused No. 3 to 8 (Respondent No. 4 to 9 herein), but the Ld trial court committed illegality by dismissal of the complaint u/s 499/500 r/w 120 B r/w 34 IPC as a whole instead of proceeding further in accordance with law against M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Accused no.1 (R-2 herein) and Pradeep Srivastava, accused no.2 (R-3 herein), in view of stay of proceedings against them. There was no occasion for trial court to dismiss the complaint as a whole even as regards accused no.1 & 2. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and recalled qua M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Pradeep Srivastava.
C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 9 Of 10
Unique ID No. 02401R0640142015
18. In the result, this court finds no infirmity in the impugned order as regards dismissal of complaint against R-4 to R-9 but the impugned order is erroneous as far as dismissal of complaint case against M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. (R-2) & Pradeep Srivastava (R-3) is concerned. Ld trial court is directed to proceed further with the trial against M/s Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Pradeep Srivastava, in accordance with law. Revision petition stands partly allowed accordingly. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
st
on 21 December, 2015 Special Judge-CBI (PC Act)-06
THC/Delhi/21.12.2015
C.R. No. 56/15 Puneet Mittal vs. State & Ors. 10 Of 10