A Magistrate does not possess inherent jurisdiction to discharge an accused in a summons trial after process has been issued.

1. These are two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr. P.C.”] filed by the petitioners TV Today Network Ltd. and its officials, seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (trial court) in Complaint Case No. 624319/2016 titled ‘Ramesh Bidhuri v. Purshottam Sharma & Ors.’ and Complaint Case No. 624318/2016 ‘Rajpal Poswal v. Purshottam Sharma & Ors.’, whereby, the trial court dismissed the petitioners’ applications for discharge. They are also praying for discharge in the aforesaid complaints.

2. Both petitions raise substantially identical questions of fact and law and, therefore, are being disposed of together.

Factual Matrix

3. The petitioners are a media house engaged in news broadcasting under the brand Aaj Tak/India Today Group. On 10.08.2011, a programme/broadcast was telecast on the petitioners’ channel which reported a gang rape and abduction case involving one person namely Sunny, described as the brother-in-law of the nephew of Respondent Ramesh Bidhuri- who at the time was an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Tughlakabad Constituency. The report criticized alleged police inaction in arresting Sunny, while his co-accused had been taken into custody.

4. Being aggrieved by the said telecast, the respondent, Ramesh Bidhuri, filed Complaint Case No. 200/2011 (later renumbered 624319/2016) wherein he alleged that the news report falsely connected him with the accused Sunny and thereby harmed his reputation by implying that political influence was being used to protect the accused.

5. Similarly, respondent Rajpal Poswal- who is the nephew of respondent, Ramesh Bidhuri, filed Complaint Case No. 624318/2016, alleging identical defamatory content. Both complainants alleged that the telecast was malicious, defamatory, misleading and intended to tarnish their reputation before the public.

6. Upon consideration of the pre-summoning evidence and the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C ., the learned Magistrate took cognizance and vide order dated 20.09.2014 issued summons to the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 499 /500 IPC.

7. The petitioners filed applications for discharge on the ground that they had merely reported facts based on official records, and that no specific imputation was directed at the complainants personally. The Magistrate, vide impugned orders dated 13.12.2018, dismissed the discharge applications, leading to the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C .

Submissions of Counsel for the Petitioners

8. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 5 SCC 424 to argue that at the stage of Section 251 Cr. PC, the Magistrate must examine the allegations and material on record to determine whether any offence is made out, if not, the accused must be discharged. According to him, this view has been consistently followed by this Court in S.K. Bhalla v. State & Ors., 180 (2011) DLT 219, and Era Infra Engineering Ltd. v. SICOM Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8294.

9. It has been submitted that although the Code of Criminal Procedure does not expressly provide for “discharge” in a summons case, the duty of the Magistrate under Section 251 Cr. PC inherently includes the power to decline to proceed against the accused if, upon perusal of the complaint and material on record, no offence is disclosed. The object of Section 251 is not to mechanically explain the substance of accusation, but to first determine w