CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Discharge Accused At Section 251 Stage In Summons Case After Cognizance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a Magistrate does not have the power to discharge an accused at the stage of Section 251 CrPC in a summons case, after cognizance has already been taken and summons issued.Justice Amit Mahajan observed,“A bare reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the provision only contemplates that the particulars of the alleged offence be stated to the accused and does not empower the Magistrate to conduct a mini-trial. The provision of Section 251 of the CrPC neither expressly nor by implication provides the Magistrate with the power to drop proceedings against the accused or to recall summons.”For context, Section 251 CrPC stipulates that when in a summons case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.In the case at hand, Respondents, who were ex-directors of the Petitioner company, were accused of unlawfully retaining and misappropriating valuable medical equipment and assets belonging to the company after their resignation. The Magistrate had earlier taken cognizance and issued summons, but subsequently discharged the accused at the Section 251 stage, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Bhushan Kumar v. State (2012).Setting aside the discharge order, the High Court held that summons cases are covered by Chapter XX of CrPC which does not contemplate a stage of discharge like for a warrants case under Section 239 of the CrPC. It reiterated that once cognizance is taken and process is issued under Section 204 CrPC, the Magistrate does not have the power to discharge the accused upon its appearance in Court in a summons trial case.Reliance was placed on Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra where a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the order of issuance of process being an interlocutory order cannot be reviewed and it is impermissible for a Magistrate to reconsider his decision to issue process.As such, the Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned discharge order.Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Senior Advocates with Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay, Mr. Ankit Mittal, Ms. Ariana Ahluwalia and Ms. Yashodhara Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Mr. Haresh Nair, Mr. Yash Kadyan and Mr. Yash Luthra, Advocates. Case title: Tulip Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited v. Akhil Saxena & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 62Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 245/2023Click here to read order

CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Discharge Accused At Section 251 Stage In Summons Case After Cognizance: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Discharge Accused At Section 251 Stage In Summons Case After Cognizance: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers