Bombay High Court
RAVI PRAKASH VELICHETI AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The amendment adding the petitioners as accused without a fresh verification violated Section 200 CrPC, and consequently the order of issuance of process was quashed under the inherent powers of Section 482.
Summary
The petitioners, managing directors of TV9 Media Maharashtra, sought quash of a criminal complaint alleging defamation of a police officer after a news telecast. The original complaint was filed against the editor, and later amended to add the petitioners as accused without recording a fresh verification of the complainant. The High Court examined the necessity of verification under Section 200 CrPC and the propriety of allowing such amendment. It found that the magistrate had not applied his mind nor recorded a verification after the amendment, rendering the issuance of process procedurally defective. Relying on the inherent powers under Section 482, the Court quashed the order of process and directed the trial court to proceed from the verification stage. The merits of the defamation claim were left open.
Issues considered
- The amendment adding petitioners as accused without a fresh verification complies with procedural law
- Whether the magistrate applied his mind in issuing process under Section 200 CrPC
- Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised to quash the process
- Whether the complaint establishes a prima facie case of defamation against the petitioners
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 353, 499, 500, 504, 506
Subjects
- defamation
- criminal complaint
- amendment of complaint
- verification under Section 200
- inherent powers
- Section 482 CrPC
- media liability
- abuse of process
Judgment
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 694 OF 2018
SUPRIYA 1. Ravi Prakash Velicheti
PRAMOD
JAWARE Aged about 49 years,
Digitally signed by
SUPRIYA
PRAMOD JAWARE
Date: 2026.09.11
19:15:27 +0530 2. Narsimha Murthy Kalyana
Venkata Mangipudi
Aged about 50 years,
Both No.1 and 2
Presently having office as
Directors of TV 9 Media
Maharashtra Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its Regd. Office at
Plot No. 160, National Media Centre,
Shankar Chowk, Gurgaon,
Haryana
… Petitioners
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the office of the Public Prosecutor,
High Court, A.S. Mumbai
2. Rajesh Jagannath Sawane
Presently residing at
E/2, 20, Marol Police Camp,
Marol Maroshi Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai-93
… Respondents
______________________
Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, a/w Mr. Rajesh Sahani, Ms. Priya Vaity i/by Mr. Devmani
Shukla for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Sangita Phad, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Vishal Deshmukh for Respondent No.2.
______________________
CORAM : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.
RESERVED ON : 3rd JULY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026
1/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
JUDGMENT :-
1) By the present Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (now Section 528
of BNSS) the Petitioners, seek to quash and set aside the Impugned Order
dated 11th April 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
22nd Court, Andheri in CC No. 1617/SS/2015, whereby the process was issued
against the accused for offences punishable under Section 499 and 500 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and the Order dated 24 th November 2015,
whereby the amendment was allowed, permitting to add the Petitioners as
accused in the complaint. By Order dated 16 th July 2018, this Court was
pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e).
2) Heard, Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
Mrs. Sangita Phad, A.P.P for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Vishal Deshmukh
for Respondent No.2.
3) The facts as alleged in the complaint are as under :-
3.1) That, the Original Complainant/Respondent No.2 is working with
the Mumbai Police Force. On 24th August 2013, when Respondent No.2 was on
patrolling duty, he noticed, his brother-in-law Mr. Ambresh Kashinath
Bhusane, standing near the Sainath Nagar Bus stop, MIDC. That, when
Respondent No.2 went to him, Mr. Ambresh Kashinath Bhusane being
annoyed with Respondent No.2, was interacting with him in a loud voice.
After some time, one lady Ms. Yamini Vishwas Shinde, suddenly came there.
2/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
Ambresh Kashinath Bhusane and the said lady assaulted and abused
Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 filed FIR No. 598 of 2013 dated 24 th
October 2013 under Section 353, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC.
3.2) According to Respondent No.2, the said actions were set up and
pre-planned incident, which was recorded by the accused with an ulterior
motive and was eventually telecast on TV through the TV 9 Channel on two or
three occasions on 14th December 2013 and 15th December 2013. That, the
telecast was a prejudiced and biased news given to the public at large.
3.3) Respondent No.2 received information from his colleague Mr.
Shyamrao Subrao Dubal, about the telecast of the incident. The telecast, was
titled as “Mumbai Khakiwalachi Dulhi”. That, the said telecast/news became
the talking point of the area and everyone started looking at Respondent No.2
as if he was a culprit. The said incident not only lowered his self-esteem and
confidence but also slaughtered his image, dignity and reputation in the eyes
of his relatives, friends, colleagues, well wishers and the common public.
3.4) That, the accused never made any efforts to find out the truth of
the story, the real facts and transmitted the prejudicial news item. That, the
said news has put a serious question mark on the integrity, honesty and
character of Respondent No.2 and defamed, lowered the dignity and
tremendously harmed the reputation of Respondent No.2 as well as the entire
Police Force in the State of Maharashtra.
3.5) By notice dated 7th January 2014, Respondent No.2, through his
3/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
Advocate, called upon the accused to tender unconditional apology. That, the
accused, through their Advocates by reply dated 20 th January 2014, refused to
tender an apology.
3.6) On the aforesaid basis, the complaint came to be filed. The
verification statement was recorded on 28th July 2015.
3.7) Respondent No.2 made an Application on 24 th November 2015
seeking amendment to add the present Petitioners as co-accused to the
complaint, on the ground that, Respondent No.2 had inadvertently forgotten
to incorporate the names of the accused. That, as the Petitioners are Managing
Directors of the accused, they are responsible for commission of the offence.
On the same day, i.e. 24 th November 2015, the amendment was allowed. The
process was then issued on 11th April 2017 against all the accused.
4) Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner submitted that:-
4.1) The complaint was filed on 4 th April 2015, against the Editor of
TV 9 Media Maharashtra Private Limited. On 28 th July 2015, verification was
recorded. That, on 24th November 2015, Respondent No.2 preferred an
Application seeking amendment of the private complaint to add the
Petitioners as original Accused Nos. 1 and 2. On the same day, an Application
for amendment was allowed.
4.2) After the Application for amendment was allowed, on or about
11th April 2017, the Magistrate passed the Order issuing process against all the
4/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
three accused under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Post the
amendment, re-verification has not been conducted.
4.3) The verification is dated 28th July 2015. The Order granting the
amendment is dated 24th November 2015 at which time only Accused No.1
was arraigned as an accused. The said verification dated 28 th July 2015 could
not have been relied upon by the learned Magistrate while passing the Order
of issuance of process dated 11th April 2017 against the Petitioners. It was,
therefore, necessary for the Magistrate to record the verification once again .
4.4) The order allowing amendment dated 24 th November 2015 is
contrary to the law laid laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609 . An amendment
which is formal in nature and a curable amendment may be allowed, as such
an amendment does not cause prejudice to the Accused. There is no provision
in Code of Criminal Procedure to entertain an application for amendment. If
the amendment which is sought does not relate to a curable infirmity or
cannot be corrected by a formal amendment, or if there is a likelihood of
prejudice caused to the other side, the Court should not allow such
amendment.
4.5) While allowing the amendment, the Petitioners ought to have
been heard. Even if it is assumed that, the amendment was correctly carried
out, there is absolutely no averment or allegation against the Petitioners in the
complaint. Therefore, the impugned Order issuing process ought to be
5/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
quashed.
4.6) Respondent No.2 has specifically stated that the defamation is not
only personal but also that of the entire Police Force of the State of
Maharashtra. That, in such a case, specific permission/authorization in writing
from the State of Maharashtra would be required.
4.7) Respondent No.2 purposely showed the address of the accused at
Mumbai so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. That, this is fit case to
exercise powers under Section 482 for quashing of the complaint. That, there
are no reasons given, nor does the Order reflect an application of mind.
5) Mr. Vishal Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.2 submitted that:-
5.1) A prima facie case is made out, as the manner in which the
incident has been described in the news article clearly indicates the intention
of the Petitioners to defame Respondent No.2.
5.2) In reply to the notice which was issued by Respondent No.2, the
accused have refused to tender an apology and, therefore, the offence has
been made out.
5.3) No clarification was sought from the Respondent No.1 before the
telecast. That, the amendment which was carried out was essential in the
interest of justice. That, not adding the Petitioners who are Managing
Directors of TV9, was an inadvertent error on the part of Respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 had filed an Affidavit in support of the amendment
6/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
Application. The reason for not including the names of the Petitioner as
accused is stated as inadvertently forgotten to incorporate the names of the
accused persons.
5.4) The Order of issuance of process clearly demonstrates the
application of mind. That, the offence of defamation is clearly made out,
inasmuch as people have contacted Respondent No.2 and made enquiries in
respect of the Article. The defences raised by the Petitioners can be considered
at the time of the trial.
6) Mrs. Sangita Phad, learned APP appearing for the Respondent -
State adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Vishal Deshmukh, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
7) Before considering the facts of the case and examining whether a
case for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 BNSS) is made out, it would be
necessary to refer certain judgments which deal with the importance and
necessity of verification statement as is recorded under Section 200 of CrPC
(now Section 223 of the BNSS).
7.1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon
Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in 1973 3 SCC 753 while considering
the importance, object and necessity regarding examining the complainant
under Section 200 of the CrPC in paragraph 22 observed that :-
“22…….Where a complaint is presented before him, he can under
7/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
Section 200 take cognizance of the offence made out therein and has
then to examine the complaint and the witnesses. The object of such
examination is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case
against the person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to
prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or
vaxatious or intended only to harass such a person. Such
examination is provided therefore to find out whether there is or not
sufficient ground for proceeding…..”
7.2) This Court in the case of Nova Electricals v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1310 in para 6, 7 and 8 has observed
that :-
“6. It is not in dispute that the act of verification is to be performed
by the Court. The complainant cannot be penalized for omission to
record verification by the Court. It is also not in dispute that the
parameters for quashing of the entire proceeding are quite
different, inasmuch as for quashing of proceeding, it has to be
established that either there is no cause of action or the
proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of Court. This is
not the case here. In this view of the matter, prayer is rightly
restricted only to the legality of the impugned order of issuing
process passed on 20th November, 2002. Time and again,
provisions of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has
been interpreted by this Court. Section 200 itself makes it clear
that verification is mandatory. …..”
7. Recording of verification is not a mere formality. By recording
verification, the Magistrate has to ascertain whether the complaint
is genuine or frivolous. The object of verification is to discourage
frivolous proceeding. The Magistrate has to apply his mind to the
facts of the case and to decide whether all formalities are
completed and whether grounds to proceed with the matter for
redressal of genuine grievance exist. This aspect has been dealt
with by the Apex Court in the matter of S.W. Palnitkar & Others v.
State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 : (AIR 2001 SC
2960). The Apex Court has observed in para No. 15 as under:
8/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
“15. In case of a complaint under Section 200, Cr. P.C. or I.P.C.
a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and
then has to examine the complainant and his witnesses, if any,
to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the
accused to issue process so that the issue of process is
prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or
intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order
to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for
proceeding………”
8. It is only after the verification that the Magistrate can proceed
to examine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
and if he is satisfied that prima facie case for issuance of process is
made out, then he can issue process against the accused in respect
of the offence alleged in the com plaint.”
7.3) This Court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta v. Mohini
Organics Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1194 after relying on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmaljit Singh
Hoon (Supra) has observed that :-
“24. On plain reading of section 200 of the said Code it appears
that it is the obligation of the Magistrate to examine the
complainant which means that the learned Magistrate is obliged to
put questions to the complainant for eliciting the truth from him.
The said provision enjoins a judicial duty to be performed by the
Judicial Magistrate which requires an application of judicial mind.
The said work of recording the statement cannot be done
mechanically by simply filling details such as the date of cheque,
name of the bank, date of intimation of dishonour of the cheque
etc.; in a format which is already kept ready. Generally, the
complaints are drafted by the lawyers as per the instructions of the
complainants. Thus, a complaint is the translated version or a
formulated version made by the Advocate on the instructions
received from the complainant. Therefore, the examination of the
complainant under section 200 by the learned Magistrate is very
important. During the course of such examination the complainant
9/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
tells the truth. In fact, the object of the learned Magistrate
recording such statement is of eliciting the truth from the
complainant. Therefore, while recording a statement under section
200 of the said Code in such a complaint, the learned Magistrate
cannot merely reproduce the data in a preconceived format. He
must give an opportunity to the complainant to state and describe
the role played by the accused especially when directors/officers of
a company are sought to be held vicariously liable. The object of
examination is that a true version on oath of the complainant is
brought on record.”
7.4) This Court in the case of Captain Lance Irwin Lobo V. Ismail
D’Souza @ Angelo Ismail de Souzla reported in 2008 (6) ABR (NOC) 1078
(BOM) has observed as under :-
“16. The recording of the statement on oath of the complainant
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality. Commonly it is
nicknamed as verification. To verify means to establish the truth.
In other words, verification is done in order to ascertain as to what
is pleaded by the complainant is true or not. It is with a view to
separate chaff from the grain as many a times complaints do
contain unfounded allegations and it is the duty of the Court to
ensure that what is stated in the complaint is also stated by the
complainant on oath and it is only then that based on such
statement that process can be issued. The corollary of this would
be that unless offences are disclosed from the statement on oath,
no process can be issued only based on averments in the
complaint. The complainant is bound to make a statement on oath
as to how the offence was committed and how the accused persons
are responsible therefor. After the statement on oath is recorded, a
Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to the facts of the
case and the law applicable thereto and find out what offence/s is
made out, notwithstanding that the other party at that stage is
unrepresented. As observed by the Apex Court time and again,
summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter
and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
A Magistrate is required to examine the nature of the allegations
10/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and
documentary to see if it is sufficient for the complainant to succeed
in bringing charge home to the accused. In other words, the
examination of the complainant on oath is for the purpose of
ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out against the
accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented
on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only
to harass……”
7.5) This Court in the case of Jagdish v. State of Maharashtra, reported
in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 4556 while relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in para 18 has observed that :-
“18. In the light of the view taken by this Court in the matters of
Capt. Lance (supra) and Amarnath (supra), evidence of the
complainant recorded on oath on the point of issuance of process is
in due compliance of Section 200 of the CrPC. Such recording of
evidence in common parlance is said to be a verification. Verification
and recording of evidence of the complainant on issuance of process
is, therefore, one and the same and such recording therefore,
amounts to compliance of Section 200.”
7.6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayle De'Souza v.
Union of India, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 135 has observed that :-
“36. Equally, it is the court's duty not to issue summons in a
mechanical and routine manner. If done so, the entire purpose of
laying down a detailed procedure under Chapter XV of the 1973
Code gets frustrated. Under the Proviso (a) to Section 200 of the
1973 Code, there may lie an exemption from recording pre-
summoning evidence when a private complaint is filed by a public
servant in discharge of his official duties; however, it is the duty
of the Magistrate to apply his mind to see whether on the basis of
the allegations made and the evidence, a prima facie case for
taking cognizance and summoning the accused is made out or
not. This Court explained the reasoning behind this exemption in
11/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi)
[National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2009) 1 SCC 407 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 192 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri)
513] : (SCC p. 415, para 12)
“12. The object of Section 200 of the Code requiring the
complainant and the witnesses to be examined, is to find
out whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused and to prevent issue of process on
complaints which are false or vexatious or intended to
harass the persons arrayed as accused. (See Nirmaljit
Singh Hoon v. State of W.B. [Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State
of W.B., (1973) 3 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521] ) Where
the complainant is a public servant or court, clause (a) of
the proviso to Section 200 of the Code raises an implied
statutory presumption that the complaint has been made
responsibly and bona fide and not falsely or vexatiously.
On account of such implied presumption, where the
complainant is a public servant, the statute exempts
examination of the complainant and the witnesses, before
issuing process.”
The issue of process resulting in summons is a judicial
process that carries with it a sanctity and a promise of
legal propriety.”
7.7) This Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Samraj
Gold Exports (P) Ltd., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2646 has observed
that :-
“18. However, it is material to note that the verification statement of
the complainant was not recorded by the learned Magistrate but said
statement was provided to the Court by the learned Advocate for the
complainant and the same statement the learned Magistrate took on
record. This fact is distinctly recorded in the roznama of the
complaint which is not disputed by the complainant. Therefore, it is
apparent that the verification statement was not recorded in
12/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
accordance with the provisions of Section 200 of CrPC
20. The examination of the complainant and his witness under
Section 200 of CrPC is not a mere formality but said examination is
to be done intelligently and in such a manner as to enable the
Magistrate to determine whether there is a prima facie sufficient
ground for proceeding. Thus, in such a determination Section 200 of
CrPC plays a very crucial role.
21. Now turning to the case in hand. In the instant case, the careful
reading of the verification statement of the complainant clearly show
that it was prepared/drafted by the learned Advocate for the
complainant. However, neither in the roznama of the complaint case
nor in the complaint or on the verification statement the learned
Magistrate has endorsed that he questioned the complainant as
required under Section 200 of CrPC and confirmed that verification
statement from his answers. On the contrary, on the said verification
statement the learned Magistrate merely endorsed as “Before me”
and signed below it. Thus, it is evident that the learned Magistrate
has not performed his duty as ruled by Section 200 of CrPC but
mechanically. Therefore, the verification is not acceptable in law
because it cannot be taken aid of to ascertain the truth or otherwise
about the allegations made in the subject complaint.
22. Now coming to the impugned order of issue process. Bare
perusal of said Order show that not a single reason is recorded by
the learned Magistrate as to how the alleged offence punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC has been
made out and against which accused. In this regard reference is
required to be made to the cited decision in Lalankumar Singh
(Supra), therein in para 28 the Supreme Court has observed and
held that, “The order of issuance of process is not an empty
formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether
sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The
formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order
itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given
therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie
case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain
detailed reasons. …”.
In this context, a reference was made to the decision in Sunil
Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri)
687 : (2015) 191 Comp Cas 177. Therein in para 53 it is held
that, “… the words “sufficient grounds for proceeding”
appearing in the section are of immense importance. It is these
words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
13/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for
proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to
be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the
conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused,
though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori,
the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to
be ex facie incorrect.”
(emphasis supplied)
In case of State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49, in para 8, the Supreme Court has
observed that:
“Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union ([1971] 1
All ER 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120)(NIRC)
it was observed:“Failure to give reasons amounts to denial
ofjustice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the
decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision
or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the
decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can,
by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to
perform their appellate function or exercise the power of
judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right
to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system;
reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind
to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the
affected party can know why the decision has gone against
him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is
spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a
speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicialperformance.”
As held in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 :
1998 SCC (Cri) 1400, summoning of an accused in a criminal case is
a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter
of course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must
reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the
law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations
made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary
in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant
14/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. In the case in
hand, this enunciation has been overlooked by the learned
Magistrate while passing the impugned order of issue process
against the accused persons.”
8) Perused the entire record. Perusal of the complaint would indicate
that, at the first instance, the complaint was filed only against the Editor of TV
9 Media Maharashtra Private Limited. Respondent No.2, in the complaint,
only referred to the said accused. After the complaint was filed, the
verification statement of Respondent No.2 came to be recorded on 28 th July
2015 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai. Perusal of
the said verification statement indicates that, it is in line with the complaint as
filed by Respondent No.2 on 4 th April 2015. Thereafter, an Application for
amendment was filed on 24th November 2015 on the ground that, Respondent
No.2 had inadvertently forgotten to incorporate the names of the present
Petitioners, who were the Managing Directors. The permission to amend and
add the Petitioners as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 was granted. In support of the
amendment application, Respondent No.2 filed an Affidavit dated 24 th
November 2015. In the Application for amendment, apart from praying that
the accused/Petitioners be added as Accused, there is no other amendment
sought. The amendment was allowed on 24th November 2015.
8.1) The learned Magistrate, thereafter, by Order dated 11 th April 2017
issued process against the accused. Reliance was placed on the Order dated 4 th
April 2015, complaint, verification statement dated 28 th July 2015, copy of the
15/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
FIR, CD of news clipping, notice dated 7 th January 2014, and reply dated 20th
January 2014. After the amendment was allowed, no verification/re-
verification of the complaint was recorded after adding the Petitioners as
original Accused Nos. 1 and 2. I also find that, no verification statement of
Respondent No.2 has been recorded after 28 th July 2015. Though the Order of
issuing process refers to certain facts and details, there is no reference to the
names of the newly added Accused. The record indicates that, after the
amendment was allowed, Respondent No.2 has only added the Petitioners as
Accused Nos. 1 and 2. There is no averment at all made against the Petitioners
i.e. Original Accused Nos. 1 and 2.
8.2) It is settled law that, while issuance of process, the Court is
required to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case, and as such the said
application of judicial mind should be reflected in the Order itself. Though the
Order of issuance of process dated 11 th April 2017, has some details, there is
no reference to the present Petitioners, the role attributed to them or the overt
act of commission or omission attributed to the Petitioners. The Order of
issuance of process is required to reflect the application of mind as well as the
reasons for issuance of process, which should be reflected in the Order ifself,
though in brief. It is not that, there has to be a detailed explanation or
expression of views. The same is neither required nor warranted.
8.3) In the present case, the verification statement of Respondent No.2
is of 28th July 2015 i.e. before the filing of the amendment application. It is
16/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
therefore clear that, the verification statement will not have any reference to
the present Petitioners. On record there is no other verification statement or
reverification statement. Record indicates that, the enquiry under Section 202
of the CrPC, though carried out was restricted to the fact whether an
individual policeman can file a complaint for defamation for his personal
defamation and for the defamation of the entire police force under the
Maharashtra Police Services Rules. I find that, before issuing the process
against the Petitioners there was no verification statement recorded. Pertinent
to note that, order of issuing process is after the amendment and includes the
newly added accused. The object and purpose of recording a verification
statement of the Complainant is to ascertain and arrive at the true and correct
facts of the case. The recording of the statement of a Complainant under
Section 200 of the CrPC (now 223 of BNSS) is to bring out the truth. It is not
an empty formality. In the present case, after allowing the amendment it was
necessary for the Court to record a verification statement and ascertain the
prima facie facts/truth. The Court while issuing a process ought not to have
relied upon the verification statement dated 28 th July 2015 wherein there can
be no reference to the present Petitioner.
8.4) Considering that, no amendment of any sort was carried out in
the complaint apart from adding the Petitioners as Original Accused Nos. 1
and 2, one fails to understand how without any averment whatsoever and
merely because Petitioners were Managing Directors of the company, even a
17/18
Supriya Ghule WP-694-2018.doc
prima facie case was made out against the Petitioners. I find that, in the
complaint there is no amendment carried out, which would attribute any role
or any act of commission or omission to the present Petitioners.
9) Considering the peculiar facts of the present case and for the
aforestated reasons, I am of the considered view that the Petitioners have
made out a fit and proper case for this Court to exercise its inherent powers
under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking the
said jurisdiction are fully satisfied, and it becomes imperative to interdict and
quash the impugned orders to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to
ensure that the ends of justice are met.
10) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the proper and
appropriate course would be to quash the order of issuance of process dated
11th April 2017 and direct the trial court to proceed in accordance with law
from the stage of verification.
11) In view of the above, the Petition is partly allowed in terms of
prayer clause (b).
12) The trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter as
expeditiously as possible and in accordance with the law. It is made clear that,
this Court has not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the
matter or the rights of the parties. All contentions of the parties are expressly
kept open.
(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.)
18/18
Checking your session…