✦ High Court of India · 03 Sep 2025

Divya Srivastava And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

Case Details High Court of India · 03 Sep 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

03 Sep 2025

Bench

SAURABH LAVANIA

Length

2,138 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure §204 Code of Criminal Procedure §482 Indian Penal Code §500 Indian Penal Code

Cited in this judgment

1. Heard Sri Shivendra S Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party No.2 and also perused the record.

2. Present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated 10-04-2023, passed by the Ld. Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 121766/ 2022 (Dr. Mohd. Kamran versus Divya Srivastava & Ors), whereby the applicants have been summoned u/s 500, 501 and 502 IPC, may kindly be quashed/set aside, in the interest of justice."

3. Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, vide its order dated

10.04.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 121766 of 2022 (Dr. Mohd. Kamraan Advocate vs. Divya Srivastava & Others) summoned the applicants to face the trial under Sections 500, 501 & 502 IPC. The impugned order dated 10.04.2023 reads as under:- "िदनांक:-10.04.2023 प्ऴावली पेश हुई। पिरवादी के िव्षान अिधव्वा को पूवर् में तलबी के िबन्दु पर सुना जा चुका है। प्ऴावली आज आदेशाथर् िनयत है। सं्षेप में पिरवादी के पिरवादप्ऴ मय शपथप्ऴ के कथन हैं िक पिरवादी एक अिधव्वा है तथा न्याय का पालन करने 2 A482 No. 3075 of 2024 वाला नागिरक है। पिरवादी अपने पिरवार सिहत िवप्षीगण के ्षारा एक लेख समाचार प्ऴ तथा िडिजटल मीिडया में छापे जाने के कारण हुई मानहािन से ्षुब्ध है। िवप्षीगण ्षारा अपने समाचार प्ऴ में इस शीषर्क "मोहम्मद कामरान 'प्ऴकार नहीं 'ब्लैकमेलर हैः सांसद बृजभूषण िसह" का लेख छापा गया है िजससे पिरवादी तथा उसके पिरवार की मानहािन हुई। िवप्षीगण संख्या-1 व 2 द संडे ्िूज़ समाचार प्ऴ के स्वामी व सम्पादक हैं। िवप्षीगण ्षारा उ्व मानहािनकारक लेख द संडे ्िूज़ समाचार प्ऴ में 6 नवम्बर 2022 को अपने आनलाइन न्यूज पोटर्ल पर ्ऺकािशत िकया गया था। सोशल मीिडया पर उ्व लेख के ्ऺचार-्ऺसार होने से पिरवादी की इज्जत को ्षित पहुंची है। िवप्षीगण के ्षारा झूठे तथ्यों पर यह लेख मा्ऴ पिरवादी की बेइज्जती करने हेतु वायरल िकया गया। उ्व लेख का कोई संपु्ि आधार नहीं है। मा्ऴ िनराधार खबरों के आधार पर िलखा व छापा गया है। पिरवादी ने िवप्षीगण को उ्व लेख के बाबत लीगल नोिटस ्ऺेिषत की गयी थी, िजसका कोई जवाब िवप्षीगण ्षारा नहीं िदया गया। िवप्षीगण धारा-34, 120बी, 469, 499, 500, 501, 502 आई०पी०सी० में तलब िकये जाने योग्य हैं। अतः उपरो्व तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों को दृि्िगत रखते हुये िवप्षीगण को तलब कर दिण्डत िकये जाने की याचना की गयी है। पिरवादप्ऴ के समथर्न में शपथप्ऴ एवं मौिखक साष्य में धारा-200 दं०्ऺ०सं० के तहत स्वयं को परीि्षत कराया गया है तथा धारा-202 दं०्ऺ०सं० के अन्तगर्त िकसी सा्षीगण को पिरवादी ्षारा मौिखक साष्य में परीि्षत नहीं कराया गया है। पिरवादी ्षारा धारा-202 दं०्ऺ०सं० के तहत दस्तावेजी साष्य दािखल िकये गये हैं व द संडे ्िूज़ समाचार प्ऴ के पंजीयन ्ऺमाणप्ऴ भी दािखल िकया गया है। सुना तथा प्ऴावली व दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता की धारा-200 के अन्तगर्त परीि्षत सा्षी तथा धारा-202 दं०्ऺ०सं० के तहत दािखल दस्तावेजी साष्यों का सम्यक अवलोकन िकया। समस्त अवलोकन से िविदत है िक पिरवादी ने िवप्षीगण पर उनके समाचारप्ऴ मे तस्वीर के साथ पिरवादी के बारे में अपशब्द छापकर उसकी मानहािन की है। पिरवादी ्षारा इसके समथर्न में समाचार प्ऴ की छाया्ऺित भी प्ऴावली पर दािखल की हैं, िजसमें उसके िवरू्ध किथत अपशब्द कहे गये हैं। मुख्यतः पिरवादी ्षारा िवप्षीगण को धारा-500, 501, 502, 469, 499, 120बी आई०पी०सी० में तलब िकये जाने की याचना की गयी है। जहां तक धारा-499 आई०पी०सी० का ्ऺश्न है, तो उसके िलये यह आवश्यक है िक िवप्षी ्षारा आशियत शब्दों ्षारा या संके तो ्षारा या दृष्य रूपणों ्षारा िकसी ्िि्व के बारे में कोई लांछन इस आशय से लगाता या ्ऺकािशत करता है िक ऐसे लांछन से ऐसे ्िि्व की ख्याित की अपहािन की जाये। धारा-501 आई०पी०सी० मानहािनकारक जानी हुई बात को मुि्शत या उत्कीणर् करने के अपराध के बारे में ्ऺावधान करती है। धारा-502 आई०पी०सी० मानहािनकारक िवषय रखने वाले मुि्शत या उत्कीणर् पदाथर् को बेचने के अपराध का ्ऺावधान करती है। पिरवाद प्ऴ तथा पिरवादी के बयानों से यह ्ऺथम दृ्िया पिरलि्षत होता है िक िवप्षीगण ने ऐसे तथ्य अपने समाचार प्ऴ में छापे हैं, जो पिरवादी की मानहािन करते हैं तथा समाज के सम्ष पिरवादी की इज्जत को धूिमल करते हैं, परन्तु धारा-469 आई०पी०सी० के सम्बन्ध में पिरवादी ्षारा कोई संपु्ि साष्य प्ऴावली पर दािखल नहीं िकया गया है। चू ंिक धारा-469 आई०पी०सी० हेतु पिरवादी को सवर््ऺथम कू टरचना ्ऺथम दृ्िया सािबत करनी होती है, जोिक पिरवादी ्षारा नहीं की गयी है। उपरो्व पिरशीलन से ्ऺथम दृ्िया िवप्षी संख्या-1 व 2 िद्िा ्शीवास्तव व संजय ्शीवास्तव उफर् संजय पुरिबया को तलब िकया जाना न्यायोिचत ्ऺतीत होता है। अतः िवप्षी संख्या-1 व 2 िद्िा ्शीवास्तव व संजय ्शीवास्तव उफर् संजय पुरिबया को ्ऺथम दृ्िया अन्तगर्त धारा-500, 501, 502 आई०पी०सी० के अपराध के िवचारण के िलये तलब िकया समीचीन ्ऺतीत होता है तथा अन्य िकसी अपराध का बनना ्ऺथम दृष््िा नहीं पाया जाता है। आदेश िवप्षी संख्या-1 व 2 िद्िा ्शीवास्तव व संजय ्शीवास्तव उफर् संजय पुरिबया को अन्तगर्त धारा-500, 501, 502 आई०पी०सी० के अपराध के िवचारण हेतु इस न्यायालय में तलब िकया जाता है। पिरवादी दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता की धारा 204 के ्ऺािवधान के अन्तगर्त समुिचत पैरवी करें और सा्षीगण की सूची भी ्ऺस्तुत करें। कायार्लय िलिपक यह सुिनि्ात करें िक जब तक पिरवादी ्षारा दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता की धारा 204 के ्ऺािवधानों के अन्तगर्त समुिचत रूप से पैरवी नहीं की जाती है तो उ्व दशा में आदेिशका जारी न करें। प्ऴावली वास्ते हािजरी िदनांक 3 A482 No. 3075 of 2024

05.05.2023 को पेश हो।"

4. For the purposes of seeking interference with the impugned order dated

10.04.2023, Shri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the Magistrate in accordance with various pronouncements on the issue ought to have applied his mind to the case set up in the complaint, as well as the statement(s) recorded in terms of Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, before summoning an accused in exercise of power under Section 204 CrPC. The Magistrate was/is also under an obligation to consider the relevant law on the issue. In the instant case, however, the Magistrate has failed to apply his mind as required for the purposes of summoning an accused in exercise of power under Section 204 CrPC and therefore, interference in the summoning order dated 10.04.2023 is required.

5. In continuation of the above, it is stated that for summoning an accused for committing an offense under Sections 500, 501, and 502 IPC, the concerned Court is required to consider the relevant provisions, including Section 500 and the exceptions provided therein, as well as the law settled on the issue in various pronouncements by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as by this Court.

6. It is further stated that a news item was published on 06.11.2022 in the newspaper known as "Sunday Views," of which. the applicant No.1-Divya Srivastava, is the owner and applicant No.2-Sanjay Srivastava, husband of applicant No.1, is the editor. This news item, in fact, was based upon two letters dated 25.09.2022 written by one Member of Parliament namely Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, wherein allegations were leveled against opposite party No. 2 wherein in nutshell it is stated that against the opposite party No. 2 an FIR was lodged by one Dayashankar alleging therein that the opposite party No. 2 is a blackmailer and against the opposite party No. 2 various criminal cases pertaining to hatching of criminal conspiracy of exhortation, intimidation, theft and molestation are pending and according to first para of letter dated

25.09.2022 the opposite party No. 2 is a blackmailer.

7. It is further stated that the opposite party No. 2, being aggrieved by the two aforesaid letters dated 25.09.2022 written by Member of Parliament namely Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, filed a Complaint Case No. 80654 of 2023 (Dr. Mohd. Kamran vs. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh) and the Magistrate 4 A482 No. 3075 of 2024 concerned, considering the contents of the complaint and the statement(s) recorded before it in terms of Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, respectively, passed the summoning order dated 10.01.2024 against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh requiring him to face trial. This summoning order dated 10.01.2024 was challenged by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1604 of 2024 (Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh vs. State of U.P. And Another) and this court, after considering the relevant provisions including Section(s) 499 and 500 IPC as also various pronouncements on the issue, decided the case vide order dated 12.03.2024. Vide order dated 12.03.2024, this Court set aside the order of summoning dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Magistrate and also quashed the proceedings of the case. The order of this Court dated

12.03.2024 was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9615 of 2024 (Mohd. Kamran vs. State of U.P. & Another) and the said appeal has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 29.07.2024. The order dated

29.07.2024 is extracted here-in-under:- "Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Permission to appear and argue in person is granted. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court, as the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petition to quash has been filed by a third party is not factually correct as both the petition filed invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the impugned judgment refer to the name of respondent No.2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

8. It is also stated that in the aforesaid background of the case and the settled legal proposition, including the judgment(s) passed in the case(s) of Afshan Meerza vs. State of West Bengal and Another; 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4126, GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. India Infoline Ltd.; (2013) 4 SCC 505; Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.16153 of 2024] (Neelam Raaj vs. M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd.) dated 18.02.2025, Laloo Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 1996 SCC OnLine Pat 471, Criminal Appeal No(s) [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 5 A482 No. 3075 of 2024 No(s). 3180 of 2020 (Sanjay Upadhya vs. Anand Dubey) dated 29.01.2024, Google India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Visaka Industries; (2020) 4 SCC 162, Jawaharlal Darda and Others vs. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar and Another; (1998) 4 SCC 112 and Application U/S 482 No. 6048 of 2019 (Aroon Purie vs. State of U.P. and Another), the Magistrate ought not to have summoned the accused by the impugned order.

9. It is also stated that summoning order dated 10.04.2023, impugned herein, is an unreasoned order as all the aspects of the case including the relevant law has not been considered while passing the same by the Magistrate concerned. Prayer is to cause interference.

10. Shri Pramod Kumar Shukla, who appeared for the opposing party No.2 opposed the present application. However, he could not dispute the fact that the order in question is not a reasoned and speaking order. On merits of the case, he has placed reliance on the judgments passed in Writ - C No. 20672 of 2018 (Dhananjay Singh vs. Union of India And 5 Others), Application U/S 482 No. 10431 of 2021 (Rajesh Churiwala vs. State of U.P. and Another), Application U/S 482 No. 1531 of 2023 (Manish Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6712 of 2024 (Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P.).

11. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the case, as also the judgment(s) referred above, and also the prayer sought at this stage in the instant application, this Court finds that interference is required in the matter as to the view of this Court the Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 has not considered all the aspects of the case including the law on the issue. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate concerned to pass afresh order, after considering the entire aspects of the case, including the law referred above, by means of reasoned and speaking order. September 3, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, vide its order dated

05.05.2023 को पेश हो।"

4. For the purposes of seeking interference with the impugned order dated

25.09.2022 the opposite party No. 2 is a blackmailer.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure