The Magistrate must apply his judicial mind before issuing process against an accused person. The complaint must disclose an offence against the accused person. There is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes that within its fold. Electronic records are not admissible as evidence unless they are certified in accordance with law.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J:

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, therefore, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners have invoked the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the summoning order dated 1.4.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the same has been passed without application of any judicial mind and in a highly mechanical manner and, therefore, the entire proceedings should be quashed.

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions are that respondent No.1/complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners and respondents No. 5 to 7 for offences punishable under Section 500 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code to the effect that he is Convener of All India Muslim Personal Law and member of the Rabita Madaris Darul-Uloom Deoband, Uttar Pradesh and prior to 28.9.2006, he remained member of Himachal Waqf Board and Himachal Haj Committee and he had good name and fame in the public. On 27.12.2012, CNN-IBN-7 published a news item in order to defame him by way of sting operation in the name of “Cobra Post”, while respondent No.4 edited news in connivance with all the accused, in which he was shown to be receiving a bribe of Rs.10,000/-. However, nothing of that sort had happened. According to the complainant, the accused intended to send their 15 persons to Haj, however, time for filing applications for their enrolment for going to Haj had already expired and the accused persons gave him Rs.10,000/- forcibly to go to Bombay for taking permission. He being Muslim intended to help those persons, but the petitioners and respondents No. 5 to 7 depicted him accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- and it was so published in the newspaper by fabricating pictures, thereby his reputation was tarnished. The Complainant also issued notices to the petitioners as well as respondents No. 5 to 7 through his counsel, but they did not respond to the same.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

5. Section 482 of the Code empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to quash the proceedings instituted on the complaint but such power should be exercised only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the compliant do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of the Code.

6. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta, (2004) 1 SCC 691, Hon’ble Supreme Court culled out the following principles for exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code:-

“(i) To give effect to an order under the Code.

(2) To prevent abuse of the process of court.

(3) To otherwise secure the ends of justice.

(4) Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.

(5) Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself.

(6) It would be an abuse of process of court to allow any action which would result in injustice.

(7) In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts t abuse of the process of court.

(8) When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact.

(9) When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it acquisition would not be sustained-That is the function of the trial Judge.

(10) Section 482 is not an instrum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document