Delhi District Court
Jagran Prakashan Ltd vs Brig (Mrs) Manoj Bhatt on 25 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 187/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
(i) Jagran Prakashan Limited
Through Neetendra Shrivastava,
Office at: 2, Jagran Building,
Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur,
U.P.-208005
(ii) Mahendra Mohan Gupta
Available at: 2, Jagran Building,
Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur,
U.P.-208005 .......Revisionists
Versus
Brig Manoj Bhatt (Now Retired)
R/o B-42, Tarang Apartments,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi-110092
Also at:- 310, Sonigar Zinnia Kiwale,
Near D-Mart, Pune-412101 .......Respondent
Instituted on : 15.07.2025
Reserved on : 06.02.2026
Pronounced on : 25.05.2026
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed assailing order dated
22.01.2024 passed by the court of learned MM-03/East/KKD:
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.1 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:42:04 +05’30’
Delhi, whereby the revisionist no.1 and 2 were summoned to face
proceedings for offence punishable u/s 500/501/502/34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘).
2. The summoning order has been challenged inter
alia on grounds that (i) a company cannot be prosecuted for of-
fence of defamation as it requires mens-rea; (ii) the vicarious lia-
bility cannot be fastened upon revisionist no.2 merely because he
was the Managing Director of revisionist no.1; (iii) the offence of
defamation does not envisaged a vicarious liability; and (iv) the
trial court did not conduct the mandatory inquiry u/s 202 Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC‘). Ld. Counsel for
the revisionists relied upon a catena of judgments of superior
courts to adumbrate that the impugned order is erroneous and it
suffers from illegality as well as perversity. He prayed that the
impugned order be set-aside.
3. Upon service of notice of petition, reply/written sub-
missions were filed by the respondent wherein it was contended
that the revision petition was barred by law of limitation as the
same was not filed within the prescribed period. Respondent
claimed that the trial court passed the impugned order after duly
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence tendered before
it. She avowed that the Managing Director of a company is al-
ways vicariously liable for act, conduct and misdeed done under
the authority and seal of the company. Ld. counsel for respondent
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.2 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:42:36 +05’30’
canvassed that the revisionists did not follow norms of journalis-
tic conduct issued by Press Council of India in the year 2018
with respect to accuracy and fairness, pre-publication verifica-
tion, caution against defamatory writing, right to privacy, conjec-
ture, comment and fact, right to reply and heading not to be sen-
sational, provocative and must justify the matter printed under it.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent prayed that the revision petition
be dismissed being unmerited.
4. I have cogitated over the rival submissions and pe-
rused the record including the TCR. My observations on the is-
sues agitated are delineated hereinafter.
5. At this juncture, it is apposite to advert to the grava-
men of the complaint made before the trial court. The respondent
was serving as Principal Matron, Military Nursing Service, Com-
mand Hospital (Central Command), Lucknow, U.P. in the year
2020. The revisionist no.1 published an article on 02.09.2020 on
its website www.jagran.com titled as ‘Home quarantine Brig. ne
di dawat, do din tak chala jashan ab jaanch shuru’ along with a
photograph of respondent eating lunch, and thus tarnished her
image in her department as well as in society in general. It was
further alleged that the same article had been published in the
Lucknow edition of the newspaper of revisionist no.1. Respon-
dent claimed that the said article was tweeted, retweeted, shared
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.3 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:42:58 +05’30’
and commenting upon by other persons. The respondent contend-
ed that the revisionists had published false contents as she was
under quarantine in Command Hospital, Lucknow till
26.08.2020, she tested negative for Covid-19 on 27.08.2020 and
thereafter from 30.08.2020 she had proceeded for 20 days annual
leave and had not thrown any celebratory lunch/dinner etc. dur-
ing Covid, as reported in the aforementioned article. The respon-
dent also claimed that the revisionists had falsely published the
images of Onam Lunch as a celebration lunch. She further
averred that due to such defamatory contents, a disciplinary en-
quiry had been initiated against her and promotion in job was de-
nied to her and consequently, she suffered monetary loss in addi-
tion to loss of reputation and esteem. Hence, the complaint
against revisionists alleging commission of offence punishable
u/s 500/501/502/120B/34 IPC.
6. Since the issue of limitation has been agitated by the
respondent, therefore, it is imperative to decide the same before
adverting to the merits of this revision petition. The impugned
order is dated 22.01.2024. The revisionists appeared before the
trial court through their respective counsels on 07.03.2025 when
directions were given by the trial court to the respondent to sup-
ply copy of complaint to both the revisionists. In compliance of
this order, the soft copy of complaint was supplied to the revi-
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.4 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:43:18 +05’30’
sionists only on 13.06.2025. Hence, it can be safely inferred that
the revisionists did not have complete copiy till then and it would
be a travesty of justice, if it is required of the revisionists to assail
an order without even having complete record (on the basis of
which the order was passed). Since the delay was in supply of
copy (which is not attributable to the revisionists), therefore, the
entire time spent in obtaining a copy i.e. from the date of service
of summons issued by the trial court till the date of supply of
copy on WhatsApp i.e. 13.06.2025 is to be excluded while com-
puting the prescribed period of limitation (See: Section 12(2) of
Limitation Act, 1963). Additionally, it would also not be prudent
to compute the period of limitation from the date of order itself
i.e. 22.01.2024 as the revisionists did not have knowledge of the
order assailed at least till the service of summons upon them.
Even otherwise, sufficient cause has been shown by the revision-
ists for not preferring this revision petition prior to 13.06.2025.
This petition was e-filed on 07.07.2025 and was heard for the
first time by the undersigned on 16.07.2025. The limitation peri-
od for filing a revision petition is 90 days. Excluding the time
spent in obtaining copy, the revision petition is found to have
been filed well within the limitation period. Hence, the challenge
to this revision petition on the ground that it is time barred, does
not find favour with this court and is outrightly rejected.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.5 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:43:44 +05’30’
7. The revisionists have been summoned by the trial
court for offence(s) punishable u/s 500/501/502/34 IPC. All these
offence(s) barring Section 34 are variants of offence of defama-
tion as defined in Section 499 IPC. The offence of defamation
primarily has three ingredients which are as follows:-
(i) making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;
(ii) such imputation must have been made by words either spo-
ken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representa-
tion;
(iii) the said imputation must have been made with intention to
cause harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it
will harm the reputation of the person concerned;
As is clear from point no.(iii), the intention or knowledge or be-
lief is an essential ingredient of offence of defamation. The poser
whether a body corporate/company/juristic person can be held
guilty for commission of offence requiring mens-rea has been an-
swered by the Apex Court in the judgment of Kalpnath Rai vs
State (Through CBI), AIR 1998 SC 201; in the following words:-
53. Sections 136 and 312 of IPC are the provisions incorporat-
ing two of the offences involving “harbor” in which the com-
mon words used are “whoever knowing or having reason to be-
lieve. Another offence in the Penal Code involving “harbor” is
Section 157 wherein also the words “whoever harbors knowing
that such person etc.” are available. It was contended that mens
rea is explicitly indicated in the said provisions in the Penal
Code whereas no such indication is made in Section 3(4) of
TADA and therefore, the element of mens rea must be deemed
to have been excluded from the scope of Section 3(4) of TADA.
……..
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.6 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:44:05 +05’30’
55. There is a catena of decisions which has settled the legal
proposition that unless the statute clearly excludes mens rea in
the commission of an offence the same must be treated as essen-
tial ingredient of the criminal act to become punishable. (State
of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722,
Nathulal v. State of M.P.) AIR 1966 SC 43.
……
57. For all the above reasons we hold that mens rea is an essen-
tial ingredient for the offence envisaged in Section 3(4) of
TADA.
58. On the above understanding of the legal position we may
say at this stage that there is no question of A-12 – company to
have had the mens rea even if any terrorist was allowed to occu-
py the rooms in Hotel Hans Plaza. The company is not a natural
person. We are aware that in many recent penal statutes, compa-
nies or corporations are deemed to be offenders on the strength
of the acts committed by persons responsible for the manage-
ment or affairs of such company or corporations e.g. Essential
Commodities Act, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act etc. But
there is no such provision in TADA which makes the company
liable for the acts of its officers. Hence, there is no scope what-
soever to prosecute a company for the offence under Section
3(4) of TADA. The corollary is that the conviction passed
against A-12 is liable to be set aside.
The judgment in Kalpnath Rai’s case has been followed by the
High Court of Delhi in the case of Raymond Ltd. & Ors. vs
Rameshwar Das Dwarkadas P. Ltd., 2013 SCC Online Del.
1328; wherein it held as under:-
16. It is important to note that in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. the
Supreme Court did not take into consideration the law laid
down by a Coordinate Bench in Kalpnath Rai where it was laid
down that unless the statute clearly excludes mens rea in the
commission of offence, the same must be treated as essential in-
gredient of the criminal act to become punishable and that a
company cannot be said to have requisite mens rea to harbor a
terrorist if any terrorist was allowed to occupy the room in its
hotel. The Supreme Court primarily relied upon a Constitution
Bench judgment in Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC 530 wherein the Supreme Court
took the view that a company can be prosecuted for an offence
for which the punishment of imprisonment as well as fine is
provided and instead of awarding the mandatory sentence of im-
prisonment (which becomes impossible in case of corporate en-
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.7 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:44:26 +05’30’
tity) the company can be sentenced to pay fine only. These ob-
servations, however were in the context of the corporate entity
that it could be prosecuted on the principle of strict liability
without any mens rea as provided specifically under the provi-
sions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Essen-
tial Commodities Act, 1954, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, Income Tax Act, 1961, etc. etc.
17. ……..
18. Thus, in view of the divergence of opinion on this question,
the law laid down on corporate criminal liability in Kalpnath
Rai & Iridium India Telecom Ltd., the earlier judgment of the
Supreme Court in Kalpnath Rai shall have to be taken as a bind-
ing precedent. Moreover, the observations of the Supreme Court
in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. shall have to be read in the con-
text “when an offence is committed in relation to the business of
the corporation by a person or body of persons in control of its
affairs” as the person in control of affairs of the company were
very well aware that the project was not viable and they induced
the Appellant to invest/expend a sum of `500 crores on the basis
of projections / statements which they knew to be false.
19. Thus, Iridium India Telecom Ltd must be taken to have been
decided on its own facts and cannot be taken to have overruled
Kalpnath Rai.
Thus, it is clear that a body corporate (not being a natural person)
cannot be held criminally liable for an offence requiring mens rea
as it does not have a mind of its own being a juristic entity only.
Therefore, in the case at hand, the revisionist no.1 (Jagran
Prakashan Limited) cannot be prosecuted for offence of defama-
tion or its different avatars as mentioned in IPC.
8. The next aspect of the case that deserves attention is
regarding the criminal liability of the respondent no.2 Mahendra
Mohan Gupta (the then Managing Director of Jagran Prakashan
Limited). As already noted, the respondent no.1 cannot be tried
for the offence of defamation, therefore the question of making
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.8 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:44:45 +05’30’
its Managing Director vicariously liable for offence of defama-
tion does not even arise and the summoning order against respon-
dent no.2 is liable to be set aside on this ground only. However,
even otherwise, a Managing Director is not always responsible
for the criminal acts of the company. In fact, unless the statute
contains specific provision fastening vicarious criminal liability
(for acts of a company) upon the persons in-charge of affairs of a
company, a director or officer of a company cannot be prosecuted
for the acts or deeds of company which he did not do himself.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs CBI, AIR 2015 SC 923;
wherein it held as under:-
(iii) Circumstances when Director/Person in charge of the af-
fairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company
is an accused person:
No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts
through its officers, directors, managing director, chairman etc.
If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it
would normally be the intent and action of that individual who
would act on behalf of the company. It would be more so, when
the criminal act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same
time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that
there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically pro-
vides so.
Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an
offence on behalf of a company can be made accused, along
with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active
role coupled with criminal intent. Second situation in which he
can be implicated is in those cases where the statutory regime it-
self attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically in-
corporating such a provision.
When the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Di-
rectors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any
statutory provision to this effect. One such example is Section
141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Aneeta Hada
(supra), the Court noted that if a group of persons that guide theCrl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.9 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:45:06 +05’30’
business of the company have the criminal intent, that would be
imputed to the body corporate and it is in this backdrop, Section
141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be understood.
Such a position is, therefore, because of statutory intendment
making it a deeming fiction. Here also, the principle of “alter
ego”, was applied only in one direction namely where a group
of persons that guide the business had criminal intent, that is to
be imputed to the body corporate and not the vice versa. Other-
wise, there has to be a specific act attributed to the Director or
any other person allegedly in control and management of the
company, to the effect that such a person was responsible for the
acts committed by or on behalf of the company. This very prin-
ciple is elaborated in various other judgments. We have already
taken note of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.
(supra) and S.K. Alagh (supra)……
This Judgment has been cited with approval by the Apex Court in
the case of Ravindranatha Bajpe vs Mangalore Special Econom-
ic Zone Limited and Others, (2022) 15 SCC 430. The revisionist
no.2 was the Managing Director of the Revisionist no.1. No ac-
tive role (coupled with criminal intent) is shown to have been
played by revisionist no.2 in publishing of article regarding the
respondent. Moreover, there is no statutory provision in the Indi-
an Penal Code, 1860 whereby any vicarious liability for defama-
tion can be fastened upon the Managing Director who did not
play any role in the publishing of the alleged defamatory article
whereby the reputation of the respondent was purportedly
harmed/damaged. The principle of alter ego is not applicable
against the revisionist no.2.
9. The question of liability of revisionist no.2 can also
viewed from a different angle. At this juncture, it is worthwhile
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.10 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:45:28 +05’30’
to reproduce in verbatim relevant provisions of The Press & Reg-
istration of Books Act, 1867 which are as follows:-
Section 1 Interpretation clause
‘Editor’ means the person who controls the selection of the mat-
ter that is published in a newspaper.
‘Newspaper’ means any printed periodical work containing pub-
lic news or comments on public newsSection 5
Rules as to publication of newspapers. No newspaper shall be
published in India, except in conformity with the rules here-
inafter laid down:
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 3, every copy
of every such newspaper shall contain the names of the owner
and editor thereof printed clearly on such copy and also the date
of its publication.
(2)……”
Section 7
Office copy of declaration to be prima facie evidence. In any
legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal, the produc-
tion of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the
seal of some Court empowered by this Act to have the custody
of such declarations, or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the
newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor
shall be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evi-
dence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to
such declaration, or printed on such newspaper, as the case may
be, that the said person was printer or publisher, or printer and
publisher (according as the words of the said declaration may
be) of every portion of every newspaper whereof the title shall
correspond with the title of the newspaper mentioned in the dec-
laration, or the editor of every portion of that issue of the news-
paper of which a copy is produced.
Perusal of these sections show that the name of owner and editor
must clearly be mentioned in every newspaper. A statutory pre-
sumption is enjoined upon the editor (who is primarily responsi-
ble for selection of content which is subsequently published)
making him accountable for the content unless proven otherwise.
Even the name of the correspondent who published the alleged
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.11 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:45:53 +05’30’
defamatory article finds mentioned in the article itself. However,
surprisingly neither the editor nor the reporter/correspondent who
collected that news/wrote the article against the respondent, were
arrayed as accused before the trial court. Was the Managing Di-
rector personally responsible for selection of content of newspa-
per (including the defamatory article) is not known. No one has
testified that the Managing Director personally authorized the
publication of article against the respondent. Hence, even by re-
lying upon the extant provisions of Press & Registration of
Books Act, 1867, no liability for publication of defamatory arti-
cle can be attributed to the Managing Director of the newspaper
wherein the same was published, merely because he managed the
affairs of the company which ran the newspaper, unless it can be
shown that he personally authorized or supervised such publica-
tion. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Jaideep Bose vs Bid and Hammer
Auctioneers Private Limited, 2025 SCC Online SC 348; wherein
the Apex Court held as under:-
18. It is not in dispute that the appellant (A2) Jaideep Bose is
the Editorial Director of the company and other appellants are
authors of the alleged defamatory news articles published in
various newspapers. The respondent filed a single private com-
plaint against the accused for committing the offence of
defamation.
19. Let us first deal with the case of the appellant (A2) Jaideep
Bose, who stands on a different footing from the other accused.
He is serving as the Editorial Director of the company, which is
the owner of all the newspapers in question. According to him,
he is neither the author nor the editor of the news articles in
question and his role is merely administrative in nature, with no
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.12 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:46:13 +05’30’
direct involvement in the publication process. He further states
that there was procedural irregularity in the process of issuance
of summons as he resides in Mumbai, which falls outside the ju-
risdiction of the Court, and hence, the Magistrate was required
to conduct an inquiry by examining witnesses as mandated un-
der Section 202 Cr. P.C.
19.1. As already reiterated, it is the editor who plays a key role
in the publication process bearing responsibility for ensuring
that the content published adheres to legal standards, including
laws surrounding defamation. It is well settled that the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867 (“the Act”) imposes a higher
degree of responsibility and liability on an editor. Section 5 of
the Act mandates that every newspaper or periodical publication
must specify the name of the editor and owner. Section 7 creates
a rebuttable presumption that the editor whose name is printed
in the newspaper shall be held to be the editor in any civil or
criminal proceedings in respect of that publication. Since an
“editor” has been defined as the person who controls the the se-
lection of the matter that is published in a newspaper, the pre-
sumption goes to the extent of holding that he was the person,
who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in
the newspaper. However, merely because the Act does not men-
tion persons holding other roles in a publication of the company,
such as an Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of their
names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be
made liable for any defamatory content. The key distinction is
that unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is
imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial di-
rector at the outset [See: K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham 2002
(6) SCC 670]
19.2. Turning to the complaint, which is also necessary in it, are
specific allegations regarding the role of the accused in the pub-
lication process. This Court in Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Fal-
gunbhai Chimanbhal Patel observed that while the Act does not
recognise any other legal entity viz. Chief Editor, Managing Ed-
itor, etc. for raising a presumption, such individuals can still be
proceeded against, but only when specific allegations are made
against them. In the present case, the complaint merely alleges
that the appellant (A2) oversaw the publications. No other aver-
ments were made to establish as to how the appellant (A2) was
responsible for controlling the selection of contents of the news-
paper publications. Furthermore, as already stated above, he is
the editorial director of the company and not of the individual
newspapers. Thus, in our view, such a broad, general or blanket
statement without specific or substantive details cannot justify
the issuance of summons.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.13 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:46:35 +05’30’
Even in present case, revisionist no.2 was the Managing Director
of revisionist no.1 company and not of the individual newspaper
or website wherein the alleged defamatory article was published.
10. The last aspect of the impugned order is that the in-
quiry mandated u/s 202 Cr.PC has not been conducted by the
learned Magistrate before proceeding to issue process u/s 204
Cr.PC. Regarding the requirement of conducting an inquiry, the
following has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Abhijit
Pawar vs Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528:-
23. Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the ac-
cused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magis-
trate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the
Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing
the process. Section 202 CrPC was amended in the year 2005
by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005,
with effect from 22-6-2006 by adding the words “and shall, in a
case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in
which he exercises his jurisdiction”. There is a vital purpose or
objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false
complaints against such persons residing at a far-off places in
order to save them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, the
amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to con-
duct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process,
complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is
specifically mentioned in the note appended to the Bill propos-
ing the said amendment. SO that false
24. The essence and purpose of this amendment has been cap-
tured by this Court in Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj [Vijay
Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638: (2015) 1 SCC
(Cri) 479] in the following words: (SCC p. 644, paras 11-12)
11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates post-
ponement of the issue of the process ‘In a case where the
accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he
exercises his jurisdiction’ and thereafter to either inquire
into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be
made by a police officer or by such other person as he
thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is
as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.14 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:46:58 +05’30’
place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his
jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not.
12. The words and shall, in a case where the accused is re-
siding at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his
jurisdiction’ were inserted by Section 19 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of
2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the
opinion of the legislature, residing at far-off places in order
to harass them. The note for the was essential as false com-
plaints are filed against persons amendment reads as fol-
lows:
‘False complaints are filed against persons residing at far-
ofr places simply to harass them. In order to see that inno-
cent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this
clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to
make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before sum-
moning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he
shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to
be made by a police officer or by such other person as he
thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was suffi-
cient ground for proceeding against the accused. The use
of the expression “shall” prima facie makes the inquiry or
the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate
mandatory. The word “shall” is ordinarily mandatory but
sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention,
it can be held to be directory. The use of the word “shall”
in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the
aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the
legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent per-
sons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false
complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expres-
sion “shall” and the background and the purpose for which
the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our
mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be,
is mandatory before summons are issued against the ac-
cused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Mag-
istrate.
26. The requirement of conducting enquiry or directing investi-
gation before issuing process is, therefore, not an empty formal-
ity. What kind of “enquiry” is needed under this provision has
also been explained in Vijay Dhanuka case [Vijay Dhanuka v.
Najima Mamtaj. (2014) 14 SCC 638: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 479),
which is reproduced hereunder: (SCC p. 645, para 14)
It is clear as noon day that where the accused resides at a place
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate, the inquiry u/s
202 Cr.PC is mandatory. Trial court record reveals that only com-
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.15 of 16
Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:47:21 +05’30’
plainant was examined as CW-1 and thereafter upon hearing of
arguments the impugned order was passed. Since, the provision
of mandatory inquiry was not adhered to, before passing the
summoning order, hence, even on this count, the summoning or-
der is faulty.
11. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned in the forgo-
ing paragraphs of this order, the impugned order is set-aside as
the same is not in conformity with the extant applicable law. Re-
sultant, both the revisionists are discharged for the offence pun-
ishable u/s 500/501/502/34 IPC.
12. Copy of this order along with the TCR be sent to the
court concerned within a week from today. The present file be
consigned to record room after completion of due formalities.
Dictated and announced
in open court on 25th May, 2026. Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG
THAKUR
THAKUR Date: 2026.05.25
18:47:51 +05’30’
Anurag Thakur
Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
This judgment consists of 16 pages
and each and every page of this
judgment is signed by me.
Crl. Rev. No. 187/2025 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. & Anr. vs Brig Manoj Bhatt Page No.16 of 16
[ad_1]
Source link
