Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S.TEJI, J.
ARVIND KEJRIWAL - Petitioner
Versus
ARUN JAITLEY & ORS. - Respondents
Crl.M.C. 2417/2016
Decided On : 19-10-2016
Section 482 - Criminal Defamation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 of the IPC read with Section 34 and 35 of the IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 309(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the relevance of civil and criminal proceedings for defamation. It referred to various judgments to establish that civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously and that findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing on the criminal case and vice versa. The court also emphasized that the burden of proof and consequences in a criminal case are distinct from those in a civil case. The judgment highlighted that the criminal and civil proceedings initiated by the respondent did not prejudice the accused in the criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member and convenor of Aam Aadmi Party, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to stay the criminal proceedings for defamation until the final decision of a civil suit filed by the respondent. The petitioner argued that both proceedings were based on the same facts and allegations, causing harassment and embarrassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal and civil proceedings for defamation can run simultaneously, and the findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing on the criminal case and vice versa. It emphasized that the burden of proof and consequences in a criminal case are distinct from those in a civil case. The court also noted that the proceedings initiated by the respondent did not prejudice the accused in the criminal proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings for defamation should be stayed until the final decision of the civil suit filed by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criminal and civil proceedings for defamation can run simultaneously, and the findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing on the criminal case and vice versa. It emphasized that the burden of proof and consequences in a criminal case are distinct from those in a civil case. The court also noted that the proceedings initiated by the respondent did not prejudice the accused in the criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's request to adjourn the criminal proceedings, finding it devoid of merit, and dismissed the petition. It emphasized that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was legal and sustainable.
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as Cr.P.C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside and quashing of order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and for stay of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Complaint No.210/2016 until the final decision of Civil Suit bearing CS(OS) No.3457/2015 pending before this Court.
2. The petitioner is a member and convenor of Aam Aadmi Party, member of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi and is the current Chief Minister of the NCT of Delhi. The respondent no.1 was the President of Delhi District and Cricket Association (DDCA) until 2013 and is a member of Bhartiya Janta Party, Member of Parliament and Union Cabinet Minister. On 21.12.2015, a complaint of criminal defamation was filed by the respondent no.1 against the petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 6 with allegations under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 of the IPC read with Section 34 and 35 of the IPC. On the same date, respondent no.1 had also filed a civil defamation suit before this Court. Learned CMM took cognizance of the offences on 21.12.2015 and pre-summoning evidence was recorded. Vide order dated 09.03.2016, the petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 6 were summoned and they appeared before the Court on 07.04.2016.
3. The matter was fixed for framing of the notice on 19.05.2016.
4. On 19.05.2016, an application under Section 309(2) of the Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner with the prayer to stay the hearing of the criminal complaint until the proceedings before this Court are decided. Vide order dated 19.05.2016, the learned CMM observed that no stay of the proceedings can be granted on account of pendency of civil suit before this Court. It was opined by the Court below that the civil suit and criminal defamation both stand on different footing and can be tried simultaneously. Operative part of the order reads as under :
“Now, to my mind, there are certain averments made in the application which warrant a reply before disposal of the same. However, in so far as prayer no.1 is concerned [as extracted hereinabove] i.e., as to stay of the proceedings, I may note that this court cannot stay the proceedings on its own/merely on account of pendency of civil suit before Hon’ble Court of Delhi.
In my opinion the civil suit for damages on account of defamation and criminal defamation case both stands on different footing and can be tried simultaneously and there is no impediment qua proceedings further in the case in hand. The accused persons have been summoned in the present case and as on date, there is no stay whatsoever from any Court of law.”
5. The present petition came up for hearing on 13.07.2016. On 21.07.2016, reply to the petition was filed by the respondent no.1. The learned Senior Counsel for the parties had agreed that the question formulated below may be decided by this Court :
“Whether the criminal proceedings could continue or are required to be stayed during the pendency of the CS(OS) No.3457/2015?”
Arguments were advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the observations made in the order dated 19.05.2016, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the criminal proceedings are ought to be stayed as the civil suit has been filed on the basis of same facts and allegations. Further ground taken is that there are similarities in both the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.1 such as the facts that the parties are same, events are same, date of filing is same, cause of action is same and both the proceedings are private in character.
7. Arguments advanced by Mr.Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel for the re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
