A single-judge bench of Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court recently while quashing the FIR against Bollywood actor Salman Khan observed that the judicial process should not be the means to harass celebrities without adhering to the procedure of law.
“The judicial process need not be a means for needless harassment merely because the accused is a well-known celebrity and without adhering to the procedure of law, he shall not be subjected to unnecessary oppression at the hands of a complainant, who set in the machinery into motion to satisfy his vendetta and assumed that he was insulted by the cine star,” the court observed.
The high court was hearing a plea filed by Salman Khan and his bodyguard who had approached the HC for quashing an order passed by the metropolitan magistrate, at Andheri, Mumbai, issuing process (summons) against them for committing the offences punishable under sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant who is a journalist had alleged that when he was trying to film the actor and his bodyguard, his phone was snatched by the actor and the data was deleted. He claimed that he had obtained permission from the guard but the actor later set his guard on the cameraman and journalist.
After this, a complaint was filed by the journalist and summons were issued to Khan and his bodyguard which was challenged by them in the Bombay High Court.
Justice Bharati Dangre while quashing the FIR said that the magistrate cannot exercise the powers under sections 202, 203, or 204 of CrPc before examining the complainant under section 202 of CrPc.
“The said affidavit, though projected to be a compliance of Section 200, in my opinion, is not. Unless examination of the complainant was made under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot exercise the power under Sections 202, 203 or 204 and in this case, by surpassing the said procedure, the Magistrate has issued the process against the accused persons, which order cannot be sustained, being not in compliance of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the order of the Magistrate suffers from serious infraction of procedure to be adopted by a Magistrate, upon a complaint being filed before him,” the bench noted.
The bench also noted that the ingredients of the said sections were not satisfied and the complaint was an afterthought.
“The impugned order passed by the Magistrate, suffer from two glaring discrepancies; firstly invocation of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, in the wake of the complaint filed as an afterthought and without the ingredients of the said sections being satisfied and, secondly, the Magistrate has failed to follow the procedural mandate, before taking cognizance of the complaint, as contemplated in chapter XV and XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code. I would be justified in quashing the proceedings, since its continuation would amount to abuse of process of Court and quashing of the same would otherwise serve the end of justice” the order reads.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment