1) The court dismissed a criminal revision application filed by Kangana Ranaut challenging a lower court order issuing a process in a criminal defamation complaint filed against her. 2) The lower court properly examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed an investigation under Section 202, satisfying the legal requirements. 3) The court found no errors in the lower court's order regarding its correctness or legality, or any irregularities in the lower court proceedings. The criminal revision application was dismissed.

1. Cri. Revn. No. 77/2021 1
MHCC050014262021
Presented on : 10/03/2021
Registered on : 10/03/2021
Decided on : 05/04/2021
Duration : 26 days.
Exh. No. : 2
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT DINDOSHI
(BORIVALI DIVISION), GOREGAON, MUMBAI
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2021
Ms. Kangana Ranaut
Age : 33 years.,
An adult Indian Inhabitant,
R/a : DB Breeze 9, 5th
floor,
Khar West, Mumbai 400 052 ..Applicant
Vs
1) Mr. Javed Aktar
An adult, Indian Inhabitant
R/a : 702, Sagar Samrat, Green Fields,
Opp. Juhu Police Station,
Juhu, Mumbai 400 049
2) The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents
Ld. Adv. Rizvan Siddiqui , for the applicant.
Ld. Adv. Jay Kumar Bhardwaj, for the respondent No.1.
None for the State.

2. Cri. Revn. No. 77/2021 2
CORAM : SHRI S. U. BAGHELE,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM NO. 09.
DATE : 5th
April, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
The order dated 01/02/2021, passed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, 10th
Court, Andheri, Mumbai, in C.C. No. 2575/FF/2020,
whereby the learned Magistrate directed the issuance of process, is
assailed in this revision.
2 The brief factual matrix is that a complaint was filed by the
Respondent No.1 against the applicant before the learned Magistrate, in
respect of the offence punishable under section 500 of the IPC. The
learned Magistrate examined the Respondent No.1/original complainant
u/sec. 200 of the Cr.PC and directed investigation u/sec. 202 of the
Cr.PC. By considering the material, including the report of investigation,
the learned Magistrate directed the issuance of process against the
applicant/Original accused, vide the impugned order. The said order
came to be challenged in this revision, on the grounds that the same is
not correct and legal, and that, there was irregularity in the proceeding.
The contention of the respondent No.1 is that there is no error
committed by the learned Magistrate.
4 Heard Mr. Rizvan Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the
applicant, and Jay Kumar Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.

3. Cri. Revn. No. 77/2021 3
5 The following points cropped up for my determination, and
I record my findings thereon, with the reasons to follow thereunder :
Points Findings
1.
2.
Whether the impugned order is correct and
legal ?
Whether there was any irregularity in the
proceeding before the learned Magistrate ?
In the
affirmative.
In the negative.
3. What order ? As per the final
order.
REASONS
As to point Nos. 1, 2 and 3 :
6 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
there was no compliance of section 200 of the Cr.PC, as witness Dr.
Ramesh Agarwal was not examined by the Magistrate. It is submitted
that the examination of witnesses is essential. No opportunity of cross
examination was granted to the applicant. The term “inquiry” was
wrongly used. He placed his reliance upon an authority in Application
U/s. No.482 No.6812 of 2017, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta V/s. State of
UP, wherein it was observed that a Magistrate can take cognizance,
after examining the complainant and the witnesses present.
7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
Respondent No.1 that, as the complainant was examined u/s. 200 of the
Cr.P.C, the necessary compliance was made. He placed his reliance upon
an authority in Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. V/s. Najima Mamtaz & Ors.,
(2014) 14 Supreme Court cases 638, wherein it was held that only the

4. Cri. Revn. No. 77/2021 4
examination of the complainant is necessary, with the option of
examining the witnesses present.
8. The only point pressed into service by the learned counsel
for the applicant is the non­examination of a witness, u/s. 200 of the
Cr.P.C.
9. The examination of complainant u/s. 200 of the Cr.P.C is
sine­qua­non, as the compliance of section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The
further mandate of law embodied therein is to the extent of examination
of witnesses present, if any. Thus, the presence of witnesses is an
essential requirement of section 200 of the Cr.P.C., for bringing the
mandate of examination of witnesses into picture. In other words, the
examination of witnesses is not mandatory, unless they are present. It is
no more res­intigra that the examination of complainant only, is
necessary, and the examination of witnesses is optional, as laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. (Supra).
Thus, there was no error committed by the learned Magistrate in the
proceeding, in that regard.
10. The learned Magistrate appears to have directed
investigation u/s. 202 of the Cr.P.C., though the term employed by the
learned Magistrate is “inquiry”, in the impugned order, as well as in the
order, directing investigation. The incorrect nomenclature employed is
of no legal consequence vis­a­vis the controversy in question, and the
same deserves to be ignored.
11. Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. leaves an option with a

5. Cri. Revn. No. 77/2021 5
Magistrate, either to conduct inquiry or to direct investigation. The
conducting of inquiry is not mandatory, if the option of investigation is
preferred to, as has been done in the case at hand (though it is wrongly
named as “inquiry”).
12. There is no question of grant of any opportunity of cross
examination to the accused, before the issuance of process, as the
consequence whereof, the submissions made in that regard deserve to
be brushed aside, at the threshold.
13. No error in the impugned order, as regards its correctness
or legality could be pointed out, nor it could be pointed out that there
was any irregularity in the proceeding before the learned Magistrate.
14. In the light of the foregoing observations, I answered the
point no.1 in the affirmative and the point No.2 in the negative, and I
proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1) Criminal Revision Application No. 77 of 2021 is hereby
dismissed.
2) An authenticated copy of this Judgment and order be sent to
the Court of the concerned Magistrate.
3) Criminal Revision Application No. 77 of 2021 is disposed of

6. Cri. Revn. No. 77/2021 6
accordingly.
(S. U. BAGHELE)
Dt. 05/04/2021 Additional Sessions Judge,
Borivali Div.,Dindoshi, Mumbai
Dictated on : 05/04/2021
Transcribed on : 05/04/2021
Signed on : 05/04/2021

7. Cri. Revn. No. 77/2021 7
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
05/04/2021 at 11.02 a.m. Mr. Pradeep Thorat
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of Judge (with Court
room no.)
HHJ Shri S. U. Baghele, City Civil & Sessions
Court, Borivali Div., Dindoshi, Mumbai
( C.R.No. 09 )
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
05/04/2021
JUDGEMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
05/04/2021
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
05/04/2021