The complainant, who is a journalist, had alleged that when he was trying to film the actor and his bodyguard, the actor snatched his phone and the data was erased. File photo/Twitter
The high court was hearing a statement submitted by Salman Khan and his bodyguard who had approached the HC to quash an order issued by the metropolitan magistrate, in Andheri, Mumbai, issuing a process (summons) against them for committing the offenses punishable under of sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
A single judge court of Bombay High Court Judge Bharati Dangre recently while annulling the FIR against bollywood actor Salman Khan noted that the judicial process should not be the means to harass celebrities without adhering to the legal process.
“The judicial process does not have to be a means of unnecessary harassment simply because the defendant is a well-known celebrity and without adhering to the procedure of the law, he will not be subjected to unnecessary oppression at the hands of a whistleblower, who put in the machinery in move to satisfy his vendetta and assumed he was insulted by the movie star,” the court observed.
The high court was hearing a statement submitted by Salman Khan and his bodyguard who had approached the HC to quash an order issued by the metropolitan magistrate, in Andheri, Mumbai, issuing a process (summons) against them for committing the offenses punishable under of 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, the actor snatched his phone and the data was erased. He claimed that he had obtained the guard’s permission, but the actor then put his guard on the cameraman and the journalist.
Following this, the journalist filed a complaint and a summons was issued to Khan and his bodyguard, which was challenged by them in the Bombay High Court.
Judge Bharati Dangre, in striking down the FIR, said that the magistrate cannot exercise the powers of CrPc section 202, 203 or 204 before examining the complainant under CrPc section 202.
“Such affidavit, while intended to be in compliance with Section 200, is not, in my opinion. Unless the interrogation of the complainant has been carried out in accordance with article 200 of the Cr.PC, the Magistrate cannot exercise the power provided for in articles 202, 203 or 204 and in this case, by exceeding said procedure, the Magistrate has issued a process against the defendants, whose order cannot be sustained, as it is not in compliance with article 200 of the Cr.PC. Therefore, the Magistrate’s order suffers from a serious infringement of the procedure that a Magistrate must adopt, when filing a complaint before him, “said the bench.
The court also noted that the ingredients in said sections were not satisfied and that the complaint was an afterthought.
“The contested order issued by the Magistrate suffered from two flagrant discrepancies; firstly, the invocation of articles 504 and 506 of the IPC, as a result of the complaint filed untimely and without satisfying the ingredients of said articles and, secondly, the Magistrate has breached the procedural mandate, before taking knowledge of the complaint, as contemplated in chapter XV and XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would be justified to annul the procedure, since its continuation would amount to an abuse of the Court’s process and to annul it would serve the end of justice,” the order says.
read all latest news from india here
