Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has set aside a Magistrate’s order that discharged the accused at the stage of Section 251 CrPC in a summons case, holding that a Magistrate cannot end the prosecution after cognizance has been taken and summons issued. The Court said the Section 251 exercise is confined to stating the particulars of the alleged offence and seeking a plea, and does not allow a mini-trial, assessment of the defence, or recall of summons. Allowing the revision, the Court restored the matter and directed further proceedings before the Magistrate on 16 January 2026.

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by a private company alleging unlawful retention and misuse of its assets by its former directors after their resignation. The complainant company was incorporated to operate a multispecialty hospital, with its initial shareholders and directors comprising medical professionals associated with two existing hospitals. At the time of incorporation, medical equipment belonging to the existing hospitals was allegedly transferred to the company. One of the existing hospital buildings was treated as a functional unit of the complainant company, where accounts and assets were maintained.

Also Read: Power To Condone Delay Rests With Courts, Not Tribunals Unless Statute Expressly Allows; Supreme Court

It was alleged that after resigning as directors, the respondents denied access to this premises and retained possession of books of accounts and medical equipment valued at approximately ₹1.47 crore. The complainant alleged that the assets were being misused by the respondents for their own hospital operations. A criminal complaint was filed invoking Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cognizance was taken and summons were issued. However, at the stage of consideration under Section 251 CrPC, the Magistrate discharged the accused, relying on judicial precedents and holding that no prima facie offence was made out. The discharge order was challenged before the High Court.

The Court examined whether a Magistrate is empowered to discharge an accused in a summons case at the stage of Section 251 CrPC after issuance of process. It noted that “Section 251 of the CrPC only contemplates that the particulars of the alleged offence be stated to the accused and does not empower the Magistrate to conduct a mini-trial.”

The Court recorded that “the provision of Section 251 of the CrPC neither expressly nor by implication provides the Magistrate with the power to drop proceedings against the accused or to recall summons.” Relying on binding precedent, it observed that “a summons case is covered under Chapter XX of the CrPC which does not contemplate a stage of discharge like Section 239 of the CrPC which provides for discharge in a warrants case.”

Referring to decisions of larger benches of the Supreme Court, the Court stated that “it is impermissible for a Magistrate to reconsider his decision to issue process in the absence of any specific provision to recall such order.” The Court further recorded that “the Trial Court cannot be conferred with inherent power either to review or recall the order of issuance of process.”

On the reliance placed by the Magistrate on Bhushan Kumar, the Court observed that “the observations regarding permissibility of discharge at the stage of Section 251 of the CrPC were merely made as a passing reference and were not the issue being determined.” Applying the inversion test, the Court stated that “even upon removal of the said observation, the conclusion of the case would still remain the same.”

The Court concluded that “Chapter XX of the CrPC does not either explicitly or by implication provide for discharge of an accused in a summons trial.”

Also Read: Civil Service Rules | ICC-Based Rule 14(2) Disciplinary Action Vitiated If Sexual Harassment Complainants Examined In Accused’s Absence: Delhi High Court

The Court directed that “the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter be listed before the learned Magistrate for further proceedings. This Court has not examined the merits of the case and the order has been passed on the limited issue. The petition stands disposed of and pending applications also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate; Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Simrat Singh Pasay, Mr. Ankit Mittal, Ms. Ariana Ahluwalia and Ms. Yashodhara Singh, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Mr. Haresh Nair, Mr. Yash Kadyan and Mr. Yash Luthra, Advocates

Case Title: Tulip Multispecialty Hospital Private Limited v. Akhil Saxena & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:27
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 245/2023
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan