SALONI ARORA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 10-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) I S.C.R. 397 
SALONIARORA 
v. 
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 64of2017) . 
. JANUARY 10, 2017 
(A.K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ,I 
Penal Code, 1860: s.182 - Prosecution under - Essential 
· requirement - Held: In order lo prosecute an accused for an offence 
punishable u/s.182, it is mandatory to follow the procedure 
prescribed u!s.195 of the Code else such action is rendered void ab 
initio - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It is not in dispute that in this ease, the prosecution 
while initiating the action against the appellant did not take 
recourse to the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the 
Code. It is for this reason, the action taken by the prosecution 
against the appellant insofar as it relates to the offence under 
Section 182 IPC is concerned, is rendered void ab initio being 
against the law laid down in the ease of •Dau/at Ram. [Para 12) 
(400-8-C). 
Dau/at Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1206 : 
(19621 Suppl. SCR 812 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(19621 Suppl. SCR 812 
relied on 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
64of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07 .20 I S of the High Court 
ofDelhi in Crl. (Misc) No. 2447 of2012 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 65 of2017. 
Ajay Choudhary, Adv. for the Appellant. 
A. N. S. Nandkarni, ASG., N. K. Kaul, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
R. S. Rana, Sanyat Lodha, Ritesh Kumar, B. K. Pra~ad, D. S. Mahra, 
H 
397 
. 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Ms. Charu Walikhanna, Chirag M. Shroff, Advs. for the Respondent. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 
1. S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 8184 of2015 is filed against the order dated 
06.07.2015 passed by the High Co'urt of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M.C. 
No. 2447 of2012 whereby the High Court disposed of the petition and 
directed the Registrar Ge~eral o~ the High Court of_ Delhi to make a 
formal complaiht in terms of paragraph 27 in Criminal Revision Petition 
No. 497 of2008 for prosecution of the appellant herein under Section 
182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "!PC"). 
2. S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 1908 of 2016 is filed against the order dated 
0L02.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.A. No. 1775 of 
2016 filed by the Registrar General of High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.C. 
No. 2447 of 2012 whereby the High Court modified its earlier order 
dated 06.07.2015 and directed the S.H.O., Police Station Anand Vihar, 
Delhi to make a formal complaint in terms of the order dated 06.07.2015, 
in place of Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, who was 
dir~cted to make a formal c"omplaint for prosecution of the appellant 
under Section l 82 !PC.. 
3. Leave granted. 
4. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue 
involved in these appeals. 
5. These appeals arise out of criminal proceed_ings (SC No 13/ 
2007) pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Delhi in relation 
to the offences registered under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 364 and 365 
IPC against the accused on the basis of FIR No. 333/2006 PS: SPL. 
Cell. 
6. Jn the aforementioned proceedings, the State Prosecuting 
Agency sought to prosecute the appellant for commission of an offence 
punishable under Section 182 !PC. The appellant, felt aggrieved of this 
action of the prosecuting agency, filed an application for her discharge 
on the ground that since no procedure as contemplated under Section 
195 oftre Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 
"the Code") was followed by the prosecution, the appellant cannot be 
prosecuted for such offence. 
SALON! ARORA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
399 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
7. The Trial Court, by order datc;d 25.0.5.2015, dismissed the 
A 
appellant's application and the order o(t~e Tii(ll court was upheld by 
the High Court, by impugned order; by d!smis~ngthe appell~nt's Criminal 
Misc. Application giving i-ise to filing of these appeals by special leave 
by the appellant before this Court. 
8. Heard Mr. Ajay Choudhary, .learned counsel for the appellant 
B 
and Mr. A.N.S. Nandkarni, learned ASGJor the State. 
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal 
of the record of the case, and further since the learned counsel forthe 
respondent in the course of his submissions fairly conceded that the 
impugned order is not legally sustainable on a point of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.