The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sarvesh Mathur vs State of NCT Delhi & Ors. consisting of Justice Asha Menon observed that a Revisionary Court setting aside a Trial Court’s order does not tantamount to the substitution of the Trial Court’s decision.
Facts
The petitioner was in employment of the respondent No.2. His case was that when he found certain irregularities in the method of working of the respondent No.2 and he highlighted the same, he was side-lined and forced to resign. However, the respondent No.2 issued a Letter of Termination in which, according to the petitioner, defamatory allegations were made. The instant petition arose out of a complaint that the petitioner filed u/s 200 CrPC alleging that the respondents No.2,3 and 4, being accused No.1,2 and 3 in the complaint, had committed the offence of defamation punishable u/s 500 IPC based on two publications.
Petitioner’s stand stood vindicated in view of subsequent events leading to enquiry being made by various authorities including the Enforcement Directorate, the Income Tax authorities etc., to whom the Supreme Court also had issued directions for time bound investigations. Thus, he was in the capacity of a whistle blower. However, according to the petitioner, he had been targeted by the respondents and subjected to defamation and litigation.
Procedural History
The respondents No.2 to 4 were summoned to face trial holding that the allegations made by the complaint “prima facie constituted the said offence having been committed” by the respondents No.2 to 4. On being so summoned the respondent No.2 filed a criminal revision petition. Vide the order impugned, the learned ASJ concluded that there was no material based on which the Trial Court could have summoned any of the accused persons and even if two of them were not before the court, by exercise of the powers vested u/s 397/399 CrPC, for reasons given in the impugned order, the summoning order was set aside in its entirety.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that the learned Sessions Court erred in going into the question of summoning by evaluating the evidence. It was further contended that loss had been suffered by the petitioner as the accusation that he had retained privileged information of the respondent No.2 had impacted his employability.
Respondent: It was contended that there was no error in the impugned order and the petition must be dismissed.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted, regarding the submission that the Sessions Judge could have looked into the correctness of the summoning order qua the respondents No.3 and 4, only if they had approached it, would be an incorrect reading of the law. It also noted that a Revisionary Court setting aside a Trial Court’s order does not tantamount to the substitution of the Trial Court’s decision.
It opined that in this case it cannot be held that the learned Sessions Court had misdirected itself by looking at the nature of the publications to determine whether the learned Trial Court could have passed the order summoning the respondents as it had not gone beyond those two articles as claimed by the petitioner.
It also noted that the reading of the articles, as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Court, shows that the grievance of the petitioner is a response to a query by the Economic Times to certain litigation initiated by the petitioner. So, it is only fair reporting to seek a response from the person against whom charges have been levelled.
Judgment
The Bench, not finding any error or perversity in the impugned orders, dismissed the present petition.
Case: Sarvesh Mathur vs State of NCT Delhi & Ors.
Citation: CRL.M.C. 2332/2020, CRL.M.A. 16426/2020
Bench: Justice Asha Menon
Decided on: 2nd September 2022
Read Judgment ;
0 Comments