Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K. N. Shukla, J.
M/s. Indian Express Press, Bombay and Anr. - Petitioner
versus
Shri N. P. Shrivastava - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 684 of 1982
Decided on 7.1.1986

Advocates:
M. A. Khan, Advocate - For the Accused/Petitioner.
S. C. Pandey, Advocate - For the Respondent/Claimant.

IMPORTANT POINT
In view of the discharge of accused under section 245(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, which had become final, the accused cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence in view of bar contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution by re-summoning on the restoration of the complaint.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 500 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 245(2) - Constitution of India – Article 20(2)-Complaint for defamation - First accused discharged under section 245(2) Criminal Procedure Code - Complaint dismissed in default-Later restored - Re-summoning also of first accused - Whether re-summoning of first accused after restoration is legal? (No)
(Para 5)

JUDGMENT

K.N. Shukla, J. - Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under section 500 I.P.C. against the present applicant and some others for publishing a defamatory article in a weekly named "Current" when the applicant appeared in response to the summons issued by the learned Magistrate, he brought to the notice of the court that he had nothing to do with the weekly which allegedly published the defamatory article. On 2.3.80, the learned Magistrate discharged the present applicant under section 245(2), Cr. P.C.

2. The complaint case proceeded but it came to be dismissed in default of the complainant on 28.6.80.

3. An application for restoration of the complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate was pleased to restore the complaint on 3.2.81. Thereafter summonses were issued to the accused persons including the present applicant. The grievance of the applicant is that once he was discharged under section 245(2), Cr. P.C. and no revision was filed against that order, his discharge became final and he could not be re-summoned after restoration of the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Shri S. C. Pandey, in reply submitted that in fact there appears to be some mistake in summoning the applicant who had been discharged. Summonses were issued to the remaining accused persons only.

5. Having heard learned counsel, I hold that in view of the discharge of the applicant under section 245(2), Cr. P.C., he could not be re-summoned after restoration of the complaint. The discharge had become final and the applicant could not be prosecuted again for the same offence in view of the bar contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

6. The revision is allowed and the summons issued to the applicant is quashed. Record may be sent back forthwith so that the Magistrate may proceed with the trial.

Revision allowed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTK. N. Shukla, J.M/s. Indian Express Press, Bombay and Anr. - PetitionerversusShri N. P. Shrivastava - RespondentCriminal Revision No. 684 of 1982Decided on 7.1.1986

IMPORTANT POINTIn view of the discharge of accused under section 245(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, which had become final, the accused cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence in view of bar contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution by re-summoning on the restoration of the complaint.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K. N. Shukla, J.
M/s. Indian Express Press, Bombay and Anr. - Petitioner
versus
Shri N. P. Shrivastava - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 684 of 1982
Decided on 7.1.1986

IMPORTANT POINT
In view of the discharge of accused under section 245(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, which had become final, the accused cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence in view of bar contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution by re-summoning on the restoration of the complaint.