In the present case, two applications were presented before Hon’ble Bombay High Court to invoke the power of Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) seeking a relief of quashing of an order dated 22/03/2022, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court at Andheri, Mumbai, for committing the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (“IPC”).
Amongst the two applicants, one Applicant is Salman Khan (“Accused 1”) who is a well- known cine artist and is a part of the Indian film and entertainment industry and the other is his bodyguard (“Accused 2”). The complainant is the journalist who reported in D.N Nagar Police station that at around 4.40 p.m. on 24/04/2019, he noticed Accused 1 riding a bicycle and Accused 2 escorting him on bike. Being a journalist, he was tempted to ask Accused 2, whether he can video shoot Accused 1 and once consent was accorded, he started the recording. This, however, irked Accused 1 and at his indication, Accused 2 jumped on the car of the complainant and assaulted him. Even Accused 1 participated in the assault. A complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court at Andheri, Mumbai, seeking a direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to hold a detailed inquiry into the incident and alternative relief, to issue process against the accused persons under Sections 324, 392, 426, 506(II) read with Section 34 of IPC, the learned Magistrate turned down the request for issuance of directions under Section 156(3). Instead, he directed the complainant to furnish verification statement under Section 200 and further directed an inquiry to be conducted under Section 202 by D.N. Nagar Police Station and submit the report.
The Bombay High Court observed that the allegations levelled against the accused persons in the complaint, apart from being an after thought, in no case met the necessary ingredients of Sections 504 and 506, which would have warranted the Magistrate to take cognizance upon a complaint. The essential ingredients so as to constitute an offence under Section 504 and 506 of IPC were laid out in the said case, making the said case a note-worthy precedent. Additionally, it was held that unless examination of the complainant was made under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate could not exercise the power under Sections 202, 203 or 204 and in this case, by surpassing the said procedure, the Magistrate had issued the process against the accused persons. Hence, the impugned order was set aside, since the said complaint had not been in compliance of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and since no offence lied under Section 504 and 506 of IPC, the impugned order was quashed and set aside.