Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning Of Two For Assaulting Man In Supreme Court Premises, Circulating Video

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash the summoning of two persons accused of assaulting and abusing a man at the Supreme Court premises and subsequently circulating a video of the incident on Instagram.

Justice Madhu Jain found no manifest illegality, perversity or abuse of the process of Court warranting interference with the impugned order, and dismissed the plea filed by two accused persons.

The incident took place on January 30. According to the complaint, the petitioners assaulted and abused the complainant at the Supreme Court premises and thereafter circulated a video of the incident on Instagram.

Following the complaint, the trial court took cognizance of offences under Sections 115(2), 131, 133, 351(2), 352 and 356 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petitioners were summoned to face trial. The trial court, however, declined to proceed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The petitioners then approached the High Court seeking quashing of the summoning order as well as the complaint proceedings.

Their counsel submitted that the proceedings arose out of a long-standing dispute between one of the petitioners and the complainant.

It was argued that the incident occurred after the petitioners approached the complainant over his alleged contact with one of them's school-going son and statements allegedly made concerning his mother.

The petitioners further argued that there was insufficient material to summon them for the alleged offences. It was also submitted that the alleged Instagram account had not been directly linked to one of the petitioners and that the impugned order itself left the question of its authorship and attribution open for trial.

Justice Madhu Jain, however, declined to interfere with the proceedings. The Court observed that at the stage of summoning, it is not required to determine whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction.

It noted that the trial court had considered the complaint as well as the pre-summoning evidence before passing the summoning order.

Further, The Court rejected the petitioners' reliance on the previous dispute between the parties, holding that the existence of previous disputes, by itself, cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.

“Likewise, the closure report filed on a complaint lodged by petitioner No. 1 against respondent No. 2 pertains to a separate complaint and cannot, at this stage, be treated as determinative of the allegations forming the subject matter of the present proceedings,” the Court said.

On the alleged Instagram account, the Court noted that the petitioners had contended that there was no direct material connecting one of them with the account.

The Court observed that the impugned order had itself left the issue of authorship and attribution open for determination in accordance with law.

“Whether the electronic material can ultimately be attributed to petitioner No. 1 and the evidentiary value thereof are matters which cannot be conclusively adjudicated by undertaking a detailed appreciation of the evidence in proceedings under the currently invoked jurisdiction,” it said.

The Court also observed that the contentions raised by the petitioners essentially invited it to re-appreciate the material considered by the trial court and return findings on disputed questions at the threshold.

“Such an exercise is neither warranted nor permissible while examining a summoning order in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction,” the Court said.

While rejecting the plea, the Court clarified that nothing in its order would be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

Title: MEENAL AGARWAL & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Click here to read order