Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning Order Against Sunair Hotel Ltd. in Alleged False Complaint Case

Court dismisses petitions challenging the legality of the summoning order; highlights the non-applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, dismissed the petitions filed by Sunair Hotel Ltd. and its directors, challenging the summoning order issued by the Magistrate in a case involving allegations of false complaints. The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to summon the accused for offences under Sections 211, 34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rejecting the contention that the proceedings were barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

The case stems from a Memorandum of Understanding in 1995 between Sunair Hotel Ltd. and VLS Finance Limited, which later resulted in extensive litigation. VLS alleged that Sunair filed frivolous complaints to exert pressure on them to withdraw their claims, prompting VLS to file Complaint Case No. 2513/01.

Sunair contended that the complaints, even if false, should be considered under Section 182 IPC, which requires a written complaint by a public servant, thus barring private complaints. However, the High Court found that the allegations, if accepted, constitute an offence under Section 211 IPC, which does not attract the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. as the complaints never matured into judicial proceedings.

Justice Narula emphasized that the Magistrate's role at the summoning stage is to determine if a prima facie case exists, not to weigh the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. The court ruled that the allegations, supported by witness testimony, justified the issuance of the summoning order. 

The court further clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(i) bars cognizance of offences under Section 211 IPC only if they are committed in relation to judicial proceedings. Since the complaints by Sunair were closed at the inquiry stage without proceeding to court, the bar was inapplicable.

The High Court's decision underscores the procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, balancing the prevention of malicious prosecutions with ensuring access to redress for genuine grievances. The court allowed Sunair to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court, leaving the merits of the allegations open for independent consideration.

Bottom Line:

Section 211 IPC pertains to instituting or causing to be instituted any criminal proceeding with intent to cause injury, knowing that there is no lawful ground for such proceedings - The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. does not apply unless the offence is committed in or in relation to judicial proceedings.

Statutory provision(s): Section 211 IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 340 Cr.P.C., Section 182 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Section 120-B IPC.

Sunair Hotel Ltd. v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2794635