Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
Medha Patkar – Petitioner
Versus
V.K. Saxena – Respondent
Crl.M.C. 2103 of 2025, Crl.M.A.9402 of 2025
Decided On : 29-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhimanue Shreshta with Ms. Sridevi Panikkar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gajinder Kumar, Ms. Kiran Jai and Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Advs.

A complainant's right to introduce additional witnesses under Section 254(1) of the CrPC must be supported by timely requests and relevant justifications, particularly to ensure fair trial standards and avoid unnecessary delays.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 254(1) and Section 254(2) - Petition challenging dismissal of application to examine an additional witness in a defamation case - The court emphasized that the complainant has a right to produce additional witnesses at any stage as per Section 254(1) provided the application is timely and justified. However, in the present case, the petitioner failed to explain the delay and relevance of the additional witness, leading to the dismissal of the application by the JMFC as reasonable. (Paras 36-55)

(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The court reiterated that a trial cannot be unnecessarily prolonged, balancing the interests of justice and the rights of the parties involved. (Paras 36, 52)

(C) Discretion of Magistrate - The exercise of discretion vested in the Magistrate must be judicious and respect the integrity of the judicial process, without rendering other provisions useless. (Paras 52-53)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to introduce an additional witness in a defamation case, filed decades after the complaint's initiation, which was dismissed by the JMFC for being neither timely nor justified.

Findings of Court:
The JMFC's dismissal of the application to examine the additional witness was upheld for lack of adequate justification and relevance, consistent with judicial standards.

Issues: The core issues included the timely submission of the application, the relevance of the proposed witness, and the procedural rights under Section 254(1) versus Section 254(2) of the CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that while Section 254(1) permits calling additional witnesses, delays in presenting such requests without valid reasons undermine the trial's integrity and justice.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT :

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the Order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class ('JMFC'), South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 633718/2016 titled ' Medha Patkar vs. V.K. Saxena '. By the said Order, the learned JMFC dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Section 254(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC.”), seeking permission to examine an additional witness.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The complaint in the said case was instituted on 15.12.2000, alleging that an advertisement published on 10.11.2000 in the Indian Express newspaper was defamatory in nature. Thepetitioner/complainant named three accused persons, including the publisher and editor of the Indian Express newspaper, in addition to the respondent herein. The petitioner/complainant also filed a list of documents and proposed witnesses, including herself, the Circulation Manager (or his representative), Dr. Anoop Saraya, and such other persons.

3. As per the petitioner, cognizance of the complaint was taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the Order dated 31.03.2000, and summons were issued to all three accused. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 subsequently approached this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 1029/2007, seeking quashing of the summoning order. During the pendency of that petition, a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and accused Nos. 2 and 3, pursuant to which both the said accused persons tendered an apology. The offence stood compounded and the proceedings against them were closed by this Court vide the Order dated 26.11.2008.

4. The matter, thereafter, proceeded against the respondent herein. On 02.08.2011, a notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. was framed for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried.

5. The trial commenced, and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner. These included the petitioner (CW-1), Prem Prakash Sinha, an employee of Indian Express (CW-2), Vinod, the ahlmad of the Court (CW-3), and Dr. Anoop Saraya (CW-4). Thesaid witnesses were examined between 09.04.2018 and 29.11.2024. On the date of examination of the last listed witness, the matter was adjourned to enable the Petitioner to consider whether any further evidence was to be led.

6. It is the petitioner's case that the matter was thereafter listed on 24.12.2024 and again on 28.01.2025. On the latter date, the counsel for the petitioner informed the Court of the intention to examine an additional witness. This was objected to by the respondent on the ground that a fresh application had not been filed. The Court upon recording the petitioner's statement that an application along with details of the proposed witness would be furnished, listed the matter for 18.02.2025.

7. On 18.02.2025, an application under Section 254(1) of the CrPC was filed by the petitioner, along with a supplementary list of witnesses, seeking leave to examine one additional witness whose name had not been mentioned in the original list. The matter was thereafter, adjourned to 06.03.2025 to enable the respondent to file a reply.

8. Subsequent thereto, arguments on the application were heard on 06.03.2025, and the matter was reserved for Orders on 18.03.2025. On that date, the learned JMFC orally informed the parties that the aforesaid application stood dismissed and that a copy of the order would be supplied dasti.

9. The petitioner has averred that on the same date, the learned JMFC, without any formal application by the respondent or an oralrequest in that regard, on its own proceede