$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 12th September, 2023

Pronounced On: 5th December, 2023

+ CRL.M.C. 5007/2014 & CRL.M.A. 17179/2014 (Stay)

M/S BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo and Mr. Aditya
Chaudhary, Advocates.
versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Raaj Malhotra, Mr.
Rahul Goyal, Ms. Pallavi Garg, Mr.
Akshat Sharma and Mr. Praful Rawat,
Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeks the following prayers:
“In the circumstances as enumerated above, the petitioners pray that
this Hon’ble court may be pleased to:-
1) Quash the order dated 07/04/2014 passed by the Ld sessions
judge Saket setting aside the order of dismissal of compliant passed
by Ld. magistrate dated 25/01/2014.

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 2) Quash the order dated 18/04/2013 passed by the Ld sessions
judge Saket setting aside the order of dismissal of compliant passed by
Ld. magistrate dated 05/12/2012.
3) Set aside / quash the order of the Ld. Magistrate dated
26/04/2014 directing service by publication in the newspaper.
4) Any other order which the court deems fit in the circumstances
and in the interests of justice.”

Background
2. The facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the present petition,
are as under:
i. On 16.04.2022, respondent no. 2/FIITJEE Ltd. filed a criminal
complaint under Sections 499/500/501/502 of the Indian Penal Coe,
1860 (‘IPC’) against 16 accused persons including petitioner no.1, M/s
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (accused no. 1), petitioner no. 2/Sh. Bajaj
Arora (accused no. 9) and petitioner no. 2/Sh. Atuj Chandra (accused
no. 11).
ii. Vide order dated 26.06.2007, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
summoned accused persons no. 1 to 15 (including the petitioners) for
offences under Sections 499/500/501/502/34 of the IPC.
iii. Vide order dated 05.12.2012, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
dismissed the complaint qua 08 accused persons (accused nos. 6, 7, 8,
10, 12, 13, 14 and 15) for non-prosecution.
iv. Respondent no. 2/FIITJEE Ltd. challenged the aforesaid dismissal by
way of a revision petition, which was disposed of by the learned ASJ,
vide order dated 18.04.2013 with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- and remanded
the matter back to the learned Trial Court giving one opportunity to
respondent no. 2 to serve accused no. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15.

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 v. On 25.01.2014, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the
complaint qua accused nos. 7, 8, 13 and 14 in view of the non-filing of
process fee and fresh/correct address of the said accused persons.
vi. The aforesaid dismissal was once again challenged by respondent no. 2
by way of a revision petition. Vide order dated 07.04.2014, the learned
ASJ set aside the order dated 25.01.2014 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate and directed respondent no. 2 to file necessary
process fee for issuance of summons to accused nos. 7, 8, 13 and 14.
vii. Subsequently, vide order dated 26.04.2014, the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate directed service of summons through publication in a
newspaper - ‘the Statesman’, with respect to accused nos. 7, 8, 13 and
14.
Submissions of behalf of the Petitioners
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that
the present petitioners were arrayed as accused nos. 1, 9 and 11 in the subject
complaint and therefore, they were necessary parties in the revision petition
filed by respondent no. 2 against the orders dismissing the complaint qua
some of the accused persons as mentioned hereinabove, by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. It was submitted that the dismissal of the complaint
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had accrued a right in favour of the
present petitioners, which was denied by respondent no. 2, by not making
them a party to the said revision petitions. It was submitted that in doing so,
Section 401(2) of the CrPC was not followed, which provides as under:
“401. High Court’s powers of revision.—
*** *** ***

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the
accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being
heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the words ‘accused’
or ‘other person’ used in the aforesaid provision would include the present
petitioners. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on
Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai
Patel & Ors, (2012) 10 SCC 517 wherein it has been held as under:
“46. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in the proceedings
under Section 202 of the Code the accused/suspect is not entitled to be
heard on the question whether the process should be issued against
him or not. As a matter of law, up to the stage of issuance of process,
the accused cannot claim any right of hearing. Section 202
contemplates postponement of issue of process where the Magistrate
is of an opinion that further inquiry into the complaint either by
himself is required and he proceeds with the further inquiry or directs
an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person
as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. If the Magistrate finds that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and dismisses
the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the question is whether a
person accused of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing in
a revision application preferred by the complainant against the order
of the dismissal of the complaint. Parliament being alive to the legal
position that the accused/suspects are not entitled to be heard at any
stage of the proceedings until issuance of process under Section 204,
yet in Section 401(2) of the Code provided that no order in exercise of
the power of the revision shall be made by the Sessions Judge or the
High Court, as the case may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the
other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in his own defence.
47. Three expressions: “prejudice”, “other person” and “in his own
defence” in Section 401(2) are significant for understanding their true
scope, ambit and width:

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 47.1.Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edn.) explains “prejudice” to mean
damage or detriment to one’s legal rights or claims. Concise Oxford
English Dictionary [10th Edn., Revised] defines “prejudice” as under:
“Prejudice.— n. (1) preconceived opinion that is not based on reason
or actual experience. ≫ unjust behaviour formed on such a basis. (2)
chiefly Law harm or injury that results or may result from some action
or judgment. ≫ v. (1) give rise to prejudice in (someone); make
biased. (2) cause harm to (a state of affairs).”
47.2.Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edn.)
explains “prejudice” to mean (i) a judgment or opinion, favourable or
unfavourable, formed beforehand or without due examination …
detriment arising from a hasty and unfair judgment; injury; harm.
47.3.P. Ramanatha Aiyar; the Law Lexicon (The Encyclopaedic Law
Dictionary) explains “prejudice” to mean injurious effect, injury to or
impairment of a right, claim, statement, etc.
47.4. ”Prejudice” is generally defined as meaning “to the harm, to the
injury, to the disadvantage of someone”. It also means injury or loss.
47.5. The expression “other person” in the context of Section 401(2)
means a person other than the accused. It includes suspects or the
persons alleged in the complaint to have been involved in an offence
although they may not be termed as accused at a stage before issuance
of process.
47.6. The expression “in his own defence” comprehends, inter alia,
for the purposes of Section 401(2), in defence of the order which is
under challenge in revision before the Sessions Judge or the High
Court.
48. In a case where the complaint has been dismissed by the
Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code either at the stage of Section
200 itself or on completion of inquiry by the Magistrate under Section
202 or on receipt of the report from the police or from any person to
whom the direction was issued by the Magistrate to investigate into
the allegations in the complaint, the effect of such dismissal is
termination of complaint proceedings. On a plain reading of sub-
section (2) of Section 401, it cannot be said that the person against
whom the allegations of having committed the offence have been
made in the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed by the
Magistrate under Section 203, has no right to be heard because no
process has been issued. The dismissal of complaint by the Magistrate
under Section 203—although it is at preliminary stage—nevertheless

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 results in termination of proceedings in a complaint against the
persons who are alleged to have committed the crime. Once a
challenge is laid to such order at the instance of the complainant in a
revision petition before the High Court or the Sessions Judge, by
virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the suspects get the right of
hearing before the Revisional Court although such order was passed
without their participation. The right given to “accused” or “the other
person” under Section 401(2) of being heard before the Revisional
Court to defend an order which operates in his favour should not be
confused with the proceedings before a Magistrate under Sections 200,
202, 203 and 204. In the revision petition before the High Court or the
Sessions Judge at the instance of the complainant challenging the
order of dismissal of complaint, one of the things that could happen is
reversal of the order of the Magistrate and revival of the complaint. It
is in this view of the matter that the accused or other person cannot be
deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in
Section 401(2) of the Code. The stage is not important whether it is
pre-process stage or post process stage.”

Reliance was further placed on Bal Manohar Jalan v. Sunil Paswan

and Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 640, wherein it has been held as under:
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that
though Section 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulated that
no order in exercise of the power to revision shall be made by the
High Court to the prejudice of the accused unless he had an
opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own
defence, the High Court in criminal revision did not issue notice to the
appellant herein who is Accused 4 in the first information report and
without providing an opportunity to him has exercised jurisdiction
under Section 401 CrPC by directing to proceed in accordance with
law treating the protest petition as the complaint, to the prejudice of
the appellant herein and hence the impugned order [Sunil
Paswan v. State of Bihar, Criminal Revision No. 830 of 2009, order
dated 18-4-2011 (Pat)] of the High Court is liable to be set aside. In
support of his submission he relied on the decision of this Court
in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai
Patel [Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai
Patel, (2012) 10 SCC 517 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 218] . We have also

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 heard the learned amicus curiae on the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
*** *** ***
9. In the present case challenge is laid to the order dated 4-3-2009 at
the instance of the complainant in the revision petition before the High
Court and by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the accused
mentioned in the first information report get the right of hearing
before the Revisional Court although the impugned order therein was
passed without their participation. The appellant who is an accused
person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express
provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code and on this ground,
the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the
matter has to be remitted.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners further

drew the attention of this Court to Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddhrath Wadhwa &
Anrs, 236 (2017) DLT 612 and in particular, paragraphs 9(iii), 10 and 12
thereof and to Jubilant Organosys Ltd. v. Engineering Traders Corp. &
Anr., 2013 (2) JCC 932 and in particular, paragraphs 1, 3 and 10 thereof.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 2
4. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the present
petition is misconceived, inasmuch as no relief was sought qua the petitioners
in the revision petitions filed against dismissal of the subject complaint qua
some other accused persons. It was submitted that the subject complaint qua
the accused persons was dismissed in accordance with Section 204(4) of the
CrPC, which provides as under:
“204. Issue of process.—
*** *** ***
(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or
other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are
paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the
Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.”

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 7 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said dismissal is distinct
from a dismissal under Section 203 of the CrPC, which provides as under:
“203. Dismissal of complaint.—If, after considering the statements
on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result
of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he
shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.”

It was argued that a dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the

CrPC is on substantive grounds, while an order of dismissal under Section
204(4) of the CrPC would relate to a procedural aspect. Reliance was placed
on a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajesh
Dubey v. State & Ors., 2013:DHC:4640, wherein it was held as under:
“13. Whenever a revision is filed either before the Sessions Court or
this Court, it is not necessary to give notice to accused for affording
him an opportunity of being heard, irrespective of the fact whether the
order is prejudicial to him or not. For example, when a complaint is
dismissed in default and for non-prosecution due to non appearance of
complainant and not taking any steps by filing process fee etc. u/s
204(4), in that eventuality, Section 401(2) would not be applicable and
no notice is required to be issued as the order dismissing the complaint
for default or non-prosecution does not touch upon the factual or legal
merits of the complaint. The said order is a reflection on or about the
conduct of the complainant in the proceeding before the Court and the
opinion formed by the Court about the said conduct. Such order, if
they do not reflect and take into consideration the merits of the case,
when challenged in revision, does not require notice to opposite side
as held in J.K. International vs. State, 96 (2002) DLT 795 and
reiterated in Hindustan Domestic Oil & Gas Co.(Bombay) Ltd & Ors.
vs. State & Anr., 2012(4) JCC 2310.
14. Further in Prabha Mathur & Anr. Vs. Pramod Aggarwal and Ors.,
(2008) 9 SCC 469, it was observed following the decision in Chander
Deo Singh (supra) that the accused has no locus standi at the stage of
investigation and he cannot insist for a hearing before process is

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 8 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 issued against him. It was emphasised that “it is equally correct that if
a person has no locus standi or right of hearing, such right does not
accrue in his favour by an indirect process”.
*** *** ***
16. Raghu Raj Singh Rousha(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioner is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case when the
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was dismissed, in the revision filed
before the High Court, the order was set aside with a direction to the
Metropolitan Magistrate to examine the matter afresh after calling for
a report from the police authorities. The police authorities were
directed to hold a preliminary inquiry on the basis of the complaint
made by the petitioner/compliant and to submit a report to the learned
Magistrate within three weeks. Things are entirely different in the
instant case inasmuch as vide impugned order dated 27.02.2012,
learned Additional Session Judge has not given any direction to the
police to investigate the matter. The matter has simply been remanded
back to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for reconsidering the
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C and to pass orders afresh. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, while deciding afresh may decide the matter
as deemed appropriate. The petitioner cannot possibly anticipate what
order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is going to pass. Under the
circumstances, such an order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the
petitioner. The position of the case has not been altered. Even no
direction has been given to the police to investigate the matter or
register the case. The only direction is to reconsider the application u/s
156(3) of the Code on the basis of materials already available on
record. No order prejudicial to the petitioner has been passed. That
being so, while hearing the revision petition by learned Additional
Session Judge, presence of petitioner was not required at that juncture.
That being so, there is no merit in the writ petition. Same is
accordingly dismissed.”

6. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 2 further submitted that the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, while directing service of summons through
publication, followed the procedure prescribed in Delhi High Court Rules,
Volume IV, Chapter 8, Part A, Rule 2, which provides as under:

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 9 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 “2. Regarding service of summons in non-cognizable cases—In
Criminal cases which are not congnizable by the Police, within the
meaning of Section 4, clause (f) (see Section 2 of New Code) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, summonses are to be served through the
civil processserving establishment attached to the Courts. District
Magistrate shall see that the prescribed fee, if any, is duly paid in such
cases.”

In view of the above, it was submitted that order dated 26.04.2014

passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate suffers from no infirmity. In
support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on
the following judgments:
i. Arun Kumar Sharma v. State & Ors., 2012 [4] JCC 302.
ii. Hindustan Domestic Oil & Gas Co. (Bombay) Ltd. & Ors. v. State &
Anr., 2012 [4] JCC 2310.
iii. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. v. Mahavir Singhvi, 2008 [3] JCC 1656.
iv. Shobhana Bhartia & Ors. v. NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2007 SCC OnLine
Del 1301.
Analysis and Findings
7. In Hindustan Domestic Oil & Gas Co. & Ors. v. State & Anr., 2012
[4] JCC 2310, a learned Division Bench of this Court was deciding the
following question of law:
“Whether and in what cases the Sessions Court or the High Court
while deciding a revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973, is required and mandated by law to issue
notice to the opposite side who has not been summoned to stand
trial?”

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 10 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 After referring to various judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as well as other High Courts, the learned Division bench answered the
aforesaid question and held as under:
“21. The decision of Delhi High Court in J.K. International (supra)
is clearly distinguishable. In the said case, the complaint was
dismissed in default and for non-prosecution as the complainant was
not present and the process fee had not been paid. In said
circumstances, it was held that Section 401(2) would not be applicable
and no notice was required to be issued. An order dismissing the
complaint for non-prosecution or in default, which is made the
subject matter of the revision, cannot be equated with “revision
petitions” that are filed on substantive grounds or touch on the
merits. Courts have recognized difference between orders of this
nature which are procedural and substantive orders. [See
Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and
Ors. 1980 (Supp) SCC 420, which draws distinction between
procedural and substantive review. Power of procedural review need
not be specifically conferred but power of substantive review has to be
conferred by the statute before it can be exercised by a judicial
forum/court. Power of procedural review is inherent and therefore
does not require any statutory provision or conferment.] A reading of
Section 401(2) illuminates that power of revision should not be
exercised without notice when an order prejudicial to the accused
or other person is being passed. The order dismissing the
complaint for default or non-prosecution does not touch upon the
factual or legal merits of the complaint. The said order is a
reflection on or about the conduct of the complainant in the
proceedings before the court and the opinion formed by the court
about the said conduct. Such orders if they do not reflect and take into
consideration the merits of the case or the complaint will not require
notice to the opposite side when examined in a revision petition. Such
orders are not prejudicial to the other side as they do not reflect and
take into consideration merits and demerits of the allegations. When a
revision petition is filed against an order dismissing a complaint
for nonprosecution or in default, and the same is allowed, it is not
an order that causes prejudice to the opposite side, if there is no
application of mind or reflection on merits whatsoever. This
distinction and aspect has to be kept in mind.”

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 11 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 (emphasis supplied)

8. In the present case, the present petitioners who had been summoned by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate were appearing in the proceedings and
the complaint against them was pending. The order dated 05.12.2012
dismissing the complaint against accused nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15
and order dated 25.01.2014 dismissing the complaint qua accused nos. 7, 8,
13 and 14 were challenged by respondent no. 2 by way of revision petitions,
by making only the said accused persons party. The grievance of the present
petitioners is that they were necessary parties to the said revision petitions and
therefore, orders passed in the said revision petitions were passed without
following the provisions of Section 401(2) of the CrPC causing them
prejudice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners strenuously
argued that the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Courts were
to their prejudice.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the order of dismissal for non-prosecution
against some of the accused persons cannot create a right in favour of the
other accused persons who are facing trial. The said dismissal cannot be
stated to be on merits under Section 203 of the CrPC, which is at a pre-
summoning stage. Admittedly, the stage in the present case was post-
summoning. The complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground
of non-filing of process fee and non-furnishing of address of the said accused
persons, which had no bearing on the merits of the complaint. Even
otherwise, by way of the aforesaid dismissal, right, if any, would accrue in
favour of the said accused persons. The interpretation of the term ‘other
persons’ in Section 401(2) of the CrPC cannot be wide enough to include

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 12 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44
 persons which are otherwise not affected by an order under challenge in a
revision petition. As far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the
petitioners on Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia (supra) is concerned, it is
noted that the judgment therein was delivered in context of different facts and
circumstances and does not apply to the present case.
10. It is pertinent to note that the present petition challenging the impugned
orders has been filed on behalf of the present petitioners who were not even
party to the revision petitions. The impugned orders dated 07.04.2014 and
18.04.2013 do not affect the merits of the case with respect to the present
petitioners. The present petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the
aforesaid orders including the order dated 26.04.2014 (for publication) passed
with respect to other accused persons.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed
and disposed of accordingly.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
13. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
14. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for
necessary information.
15. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA
JUDGE

DECEMBER 05, 2023/bsr

CRL.M.C. 5007/2014
Signature Not Verified Page 13 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:05.12.2023
18:46:44