Court affirms that Magistrate cannot discharge accused in summons trial; remands case for further proceedings.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside a discharge order made by a Magistrate concerning a complaint filed by Tulip Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited against its former directors. The case involved allegations of unlawful retention and misappropriation of valuable medical equipment and assets by the ex-directors for use in a separate nursing home. The High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, emphasized that the Magistrate in a summons trial case does not have the authority to discharge accused individuals after taking cognizance and issuing summons.
The dispute centers around the alleged misappropriation of medical equipment valued at approximately Rs. 1.47 crores by the respondents, ex-directors of Tulip Hospital. The assets were reportedly being used in a private establishment, Saxena Multispeciality Hospital Limited, without authorization. Initially, the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the respondents. However, at the stage of considering the service of notice of accusation under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Magistrate discharged the accused, stating that Section 452 of the Companies Act, which was invoked in the complaint, did not apply to shareholders or third parties in possession of company assets.
The High Court meticulously analyzed previous judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, and concluded that the Magistrate erred in applying Section 239, which pertains to warrant cases, to a summons case governed by Chapter XX of the CrPC. Justice Mahajan noted that the provision under Section 251 CrPC does not empower a Magistrate to conduct a mini-trial or to recall summons, making the Magistrate's discharge order legally untenable.
The court highlighted that the issue was not about the merits of the case but centered on procedural adherence, reiterating that the power to discharge in a summons trial is not contemplated under the CrPC. Consequently, the High Court remanded the case back to the Magistrate for further proceedings, ensuring that the summons trial process is followed to its logical conclusion.
This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring procedural propriety and adherence to statutory mandates in criminal trials, especially in corporate misappropriation cases. The matter is scheduled to be heard further by the Magistrate on January 16, 2026.
Bottom Line:
Magistrate in a summons trial case under Section 251 CrPC cannot discharge an accused after taking cognizance and issuing summons, as Chapter XX of the CrPC does not provide for discharge in summons cases, and recalling of summons is impermissible under the law.
Statutory provision(s): Section 251 CrPC, Section 239 CrPC, Section 452 Companies Act, 2013, Section 200 CrPC, Section 204 CrPC, Section 482 CrPC.
Tulip Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited v. Akhil Saxena, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833624
