2016 INSC 0850
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                Rahul Gandhi

                                                      Vs.

                                     Rajesh Mahadev Kunte & Anr.

                                         SLP.(Crl.)No.3749/2015

                            (Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ.,)

                                                 01.09.2016

                                                   ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.R. Lalit and
Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Anand and Mr. Merusagar,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 64 of 2015 invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of
Sections 4 99 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The said petition was heard along with batch
of matters and has been decided vide judgment in Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India,
Ministry of Law and Ors1. Be it noted, when the writ petition was pending in this Court, there
was stay of further proceedings of OMA No.353 of 2014 pe-nding before the learned 3rd
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi. It is apt to note here that after cognizance was
taken and summons were issued to the petitioner, he preferred Criminal Writ Petition
No.4960 before the High Court of Bombay for quashment of the proceedings as well as the
order issuing summons. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.03.2015, after
adverting to certain aspects and the law did not think it appropriate to interfere with the
proceedings or with the order passed issuing summons by the learned Magistrate. Against the
said order, the present special leave petition was preferred. As the writ petition was pending,
notice was issued in the special leave petition but no order of stay was granted. The matter
was taken up on various dates and on 19.07.2016, the matter was part heard. Thereafter it
was heard on 27.07.2016 and thereafter on 24.08.2016, after hearing for some time, the
matter was adjourned to today. We may note with profit that on the last occasion, certain
Suggestions were given to learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel
who had to take instructions has submitted that the petitioner should make a statement in a
particular manner.

3. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner shall go by whatever
has been stated in the writ petition preferred before the High Court.

1  SpotLaw
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, when we expressed our opinion that we are
not inclined to interfere, Mr. Sibal sought leave of this Court to withdraw the special leave
petition.

5. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

6. Needless to say, if any observation has been made by the High Court while disposing of
the writ petition, the same shall be confined to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the
writ petition and the trial Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law without being
influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court.

1(2016) 7 SCC 0221

2  SpotLaw