Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

No.

612

OF

2012

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9953 of 2010)

Bhushan Kumar & Anr.

.... Appellant(s)

Versus

State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

.... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

No.

613

OF

2012

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9958 of 2010

J U D G M

E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1)

Leave granted.

2)

These appeals are directed against the final judgment

and order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi

at New Delhi in Crl.M.C. Nos. 3376 & 3375 of 2009 whereby

the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants herein for

quashing the summoning order dated 16.01.2009 passed by

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

the Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. 290 of 2002 registered

at Police Station, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as “the IPC”).

3)

Brief facts:

a)

The present cases pertain to a property dispute regarding

distribution of the assets left behind by late Shri Gulshan

Kumar (of T-Series fame). On 19.02.1998, a handwritten note

was executed between the appellants and Respondent No. 2

wherein distribution of certain assets and shares in different

companies was provided for. Subsequently, on 21.02.1998, a

fresh agreement was entered into between the appellants and

the Respondent No. 2 which superseded the handwritten note.

b)

However, disputes arose soon after the above said second

agreement dated 21.02.1998, giving rise to multifarious

litigations at the behest of Respondent No. 2 which are

presently pending adjudication before the High Court.

c)

However, after 4 years, due to non-materialization of the

agreement dated 21.02.1998, the Respondent No. 2 got

registered the present FIR under Section 420 IPC against all

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

the other signatories to the said agreement wherein only one of

the signatory was a party to it. For quashing the said FIR, the

appellants herein filed Crl.M.C. No. 59 of 2005 before the High

Court.

d)

On being informed by the State that chargesheet has

been filed before the Magistrate, the High Court disposed of

the Crl.M.C. No. 59 of 2005 vide order dated 30.03.2009 giving

liberty to the appellants to take appropriate steps in case they

are summoned.

e)

By order dated 16.01.2009, the Magistrate summoned

the appellants herein. Challenging the said summoning order,

the appellants herein filed Criminal M.C. Nos. 3376 and 3375

of 2009 before the High Court.

f)

By the impugned order dated 30.07.2010, the High Court

rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing the

summoning order passed by the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the

said order, the appellants have filed these appeals by way of

special leave before this Court.

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4)

Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

5)

The questions which arise for consideration in these

appeals are:

(a)

Whether taking cognizance of an offence by the

Magistrate is same as summoning an accused to

appear?

(b)

Whether the Magistrate, while considering the

question of summoning an accused, is required to

assign reasons for the same?

6)

In this context, it is relevant to extract Sections 190 and

204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Code”) which read as under:

“190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates. (1) Subject

to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first

class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially

empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take

cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such

offence ;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than