Gujarat High Court
Reema Lamba @ Mallika Sherawat vs State Of Gujarat & on 15 February, 2013
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
REEMA LAMBA @ MALLIKA SHERAWAT....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.MA/13032/2007 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13032 of 2007 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/-
=========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
Yes 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
No ================================================================ REEMA LAMBA @ MALLIKA SHERAWAT....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &
2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR DEEP D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR DHAVAL D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR BS NILAK, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR LB DABHI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ================================================================ CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 15/02/2013 C.A.V. JUDGMENT 1.00. Present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner herein original accused to quash and set aside the Criminal Complaint No.817 of 2007 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vadodara and the order dtd.10/10/2007 passed in the Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2007.
2.00. Facts leading to the present petition, in nutshell, are as under :-
2.01. That the respondent No.2 herein original complainant has instituted Criminal Complaint No.817 of 2007 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara for the offence punishable under section 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with sections 366(A) and 294 of Indian Penal Code.
2.02. That the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vadodara passed an order for inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the police officer of J.P. Road Police Station to inquire into the matter and submit the report. That after recording the statement of the complainant as well as owner of the Channel as it was found that no case is made out against the accused, the concerned police officer submitted report before the learned Magistrate submitting that no case is made out against the accused.
That the learned Magistrate by order dtd.30/3/2007 dismissed the said complaint in exercise of the powers under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by observing that the complainant has not provided sufficient material to enable the Court to take cognizance of the offence.
2.03. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vadodara below Ex.1 in the Criminal Complaint No.817 of 2007 dtd.30/3/3007, the original complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2007 before the learned Sessions Court, Vadodara, which came to be heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.5, Vadodara, who by the impugned Judgement and Order dtd.18/4/2007 has allowed the said Revision Application by directing the learned trial court to pass necessary further order calling upon the investigating agency to make proper and through investigation through authorised police officer, collect the necessary evidence, if any, and submit the report so that necessary further order can be passed and directed the learned trial court that before passing such order, give an opportunity of being heard to both the sides as statutorily required and as per the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the learned Revisional Court remanded the matter to the learned trial court for further action as observed hereinabove.
2.04. That thereafter on remand, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) directed the concerned police officer of J.P. Road Police Station to further inquire into the matter and submit the report and thereafter holding further inquiry the concerned Police Inspector of J.P. Road Police Station submitted report on 14/8/2007 and considering the same the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) by order dtd.10/10/2007 has directed to issue summons / process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
2.04. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vadodara in Criminal Complaint No.817 of 2007, dtd.10/10/2007 directing to issue process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and also being aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court in Criminal Application No. 83 of 2007, petitioner
- original accused has preferred present quashing petition.
3.00. Mr.D.D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such the petitioner has not committed offence under section 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 read with sections 366(A) and 294 of Indian Penal Code, as alleged. It is further submitted that a false and frivolous complaint has been filed against the petitioner, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and court.
3.01.
Mr.D.D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such the learned Magistrate has committed an error and/or illegality in issuing process/summons against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
3.02.
Mr.D.D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such the learned Court at Vadodara has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner.
3.03. Mr.D.D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such the order passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2007 was against the principles of natural justice, as in the said Revision Application, petitioner
- original accused was not joined as party. It is submitted that once the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereafter in a Revision Application the petitioner was required to be joined and heard. Therefore, it is submitted that as such when the order passed by the revisional court was illegal and against the principles of natural justice, further order passed by the learned Magistrate on remand deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3.04. Mr.D.D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that as such the petitioner has not committed the offences as alleged. In support of his above submission, Mr.Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sadhna Vs. State of Delhi, reported in 1982-ILR (Del) 1-339.
3.05. Mr.D.D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Versus Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and another, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 363 as well as in the case of Prabha Mathur & Another Versus Pramod Aggrawal & Others, reported in 2009 (1) GLH 67, in support of his prayer to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate directing to issue summons / process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as to quash and set aside the order passed by the revisional court in Revision Application No. 83 of 2007. He has also relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jamna Singh & Another Versus State and Another, reported in 2008 Criminal Law Journal 650 (Rajasthan).
4.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. It is submitted that as such the learned Magistrate has rightly directed to issue summons / process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that as such a speaking and well-reasoned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate while passing order dtd.10/10/2007 directing to issue process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, which is on the basis of the report submitted by the concerned investigating officer of J.P. Road Police Station. It is submitted that having satisfied considering the material on record and the report submitted by the concerned police inspector, who conducted inquiry, that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner - original accused and thereafter when the learned Magistrate has directed to issue process / summons against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.01. Mr.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that as such, all the contentions raised by the petitioner -
original accused are her defences which are required to be considered at the time of trial.
4.02. Now, so far as the challenge to the order passed by the learned revisional court in revision application on the ground that the same is in breach of principles of natural justice, it is submitted by Mr.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that as such while passing order in Revision Application No.83 of 2007, the revisional court has only remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate to direct the concerned investigating officer to hold further inquiry and thereafter to consider the report and pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity to respective parties and therefore, the order passed by the revisional court cannot be said to be illegal. It is submitted that even after the order passed by the revisional court in Revision Application No. 83 of 2007, the concerned investigating officer held further inquiry and submitted report and thereafter considering the same, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order directing to issue summons / process against the accused and till then the petitioner had not challenged the order passed by the revisional court and therefore, not it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the same when subsequently after remand, investigating officer has held further inquiry and has submitted report and thereafter the learned Magistrate has directed to issue process against the petitioner.
5.00. Heard Mr.Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
5.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present proceedings, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2007 as well as subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate dtd.10/10/2007 directing to issue summons / process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
5.02. The order passed by the learned revisoinal court in Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2007 dtd.18/4/2007, is challenged mainly on the ground that before passing order dtd.18/4/2007, petitioner was not heard and/or no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. However, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to point out any provision under which in a revision application against the order of dismissal of the complaint and when the learned revisional court has remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate for further inquiry, accused was required to be heard. It is to be noted that as such while passing order dtd.18/4/2007, the learned revisional court has not passed any order directing the Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process. By order dtd.18/4/2007 the learned revisional court has remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate to direct the concerned police officer to further inquire into the matter and submit the report and thereafter the learned Magistrate to consider the same and pass appropriate order. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2007 dtd.18/4/2007 is not required to be quashed and set aside.
5.03. It is to be noted that as such, thereafter till the learned Magistrate on remand directed the concerned police officer to further inquire into the matter and till order dtd.10/10/2007 was passed by the learned Magistrate considering the report submitted by the concerned police officer on further inquiry and till present petition is filed, the petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2007 dtd.18/4/2007. Only after the learned Magistrate thereafter has passed the impugned order directing to issue process against the petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned revisional court in Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 2007.
5.04. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner relying upon the aforesaid decisions, that it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed offence under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, considering the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate directing to issue process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, it appears that a speaking and well-reasoned order has been passed by the learned trial court and while directing to issue process against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 294 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate has considered the report submitted by the concerned police officer on further inquiry and considering the material on record. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, are all her defences which are required to be considered at the time of trial on appreciation of evidence. However, on the face of it, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged. While exercising the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Court is not required to consider whether on the basis of the material on record, the petitioner is likely to be convicted or not. When the learned Magistrate has directed to issue process against the petitioner considering the material on record and by applying mind and it discloses application of mind, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5.05. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that with respect to territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioner is concerned, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Variar V/s. Share Shoppe reported in 2010 Cri.L.J. 3848 is required to be referred to. In the case of Krishna Kumar Variar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that in cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should file an application before the trial court making such an averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a Court has jurisdiction to try/entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon the facts of the case. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that hence, instead of rushing to the higher court against the summoning order, the concerned person should approach the trial court with a suitable application for this purpose and the trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case.
5.06. Under the circumstances, the petitioner may approach the learned Magistrate by submitting appropriate application and raise objection with respect to jurisdiction and on appreciation of evidence on record and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainant, the learned Magistrate is required to consider the same. Under the circumstances, the question of jurisdiction is kept open whcih shall be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law and on merits, in case, such dispute is raised before the learned Magistrate.
6.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
sd/-
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik Page 11 of 11