The complainant, who is a journalist, had alleged that while he was trying to film the actor and his bodyguard, the actor snatched his phone and the data was deleted. File photo/Twitter
The High Court was hearing a plea filed by Salman Khan and his bodyguard, who had approached the HC to set aside an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in Andheri, Mumbai, against them for committing an offense punishable under section 504 Process (summons) was issued. 506 of the Indian Penal Code
A single judge bench of Bombay High Court Justice Bharti Dangre recently quashed the FIR against Bollywood actor Salman Khan It was observed that judicial process should not be a means to harass celebrities without following due process of law.
“Judicial process should not be a means of unnecessary harassment merely because the accused is a well-known personality and without following the process of law, he shall not be subjected to unnecessary harassment at the hands of a complainant, who has sought to satisfy his vendetta by the court. set in motion the machinery and assumed that the cine star had defamed him,” the court said.
The High Court was hearing a plea filed by Salman Khan and his bodyguard, who had approached the HC to set aside an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in Andheri, Mumbai, against them for committing an offense punishable under section 504 Process (summons) was issued. 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant, who is a journalist, had alleged that while he was trying to film the actor and his bodyguard, the actor snatched his phone and the data was deleted. He claimed that he had taken permission from the guard but the actor later put his guard over the cameraman and the journalist.
Subsequently a complaint was filed by the journalist and summons were issued to Khan and his bodyguard, which they challenged in the Bombay High Court.
Justice Bharati Dangre quashed the FIR, observing that the Magistrate cannot exercise powers under Section 202, 203, or 204 of the CrPC before examining the complainant under Section 202 of the CrPC.
“The said affidavit, though in my opinion presumed to comply with section 200, does not. Unless the complainant is examined under section 200 of Cr.PC, the Magistrate under section 202, 203 or 204 cannot exercise the power and in case, by going through the said process, the Magistrate has issued process against the accused persons, the order of which cannot be sustained, being not in compliance with section 200 Cr.P.C., Therefore the order of the Magistrate suffers from grave violation of the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate, on the complaint being filed before him,” the bench said.
The bench also said that the contents of the said sections were not satisfied and the complaint was an afterthought.
“There are two glaring inconsistencies in the order passed by the Magistrate; Firstly invoking sections 504 and 506 of IPC, in view of the complaint filed subsequently and without being satisfied without the ingredients of the said sections, and secondly, before taking cognizance of the complaint, the Magistrate failed to comply with the procedural mandate Is. , as contemplated in Chapter XV and XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would be proper for me to quash the proceedings, as continuing the same would be an abuse of the process of the court and quashing the same would otherwise be a miscarriage of justice.
read all latest india news Here
