Court clarifies summoning stage requires only prima facie material, leaves Instagram authorship issue for trial
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Meenal Agarwal and another, challenging their summoning in a criminal case involving assault and alleged IT offences. The judgment, delivered by Justice Madhu Jain on September 17, 2026, upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, who took cognizance of offences under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The case arose from an incident on January 30, 2026, at the Supreme Court premises, where the petitioners were accused by respondent No. 2 of assaulting and abusing him, and subsequently circulating a video of the incident on Instagram. Following the complaint, NCR No. 03/2026 was registered at the Tilak Marg Police Station. While the Sessions Judge declined to proceed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cognizance was taken under the BNS and IT Act, and the petitioners were summoned for trial.
The petitioners contended that the allegations were rooted in a long-standing dispute and that the Instagram account implicated was not directly linked to petitioner No. 1. They argued that the evidence was insufficient to justify summoning and that the complaint proceedings should be quashed.
Rejecting these contentions, the High Court clarified that at the summoning stage, the Court's limited role is to ascertain whether there is sufficient material to proceed, not to determine guilt or innocence. The Court observed that the Sessions Judge had independently and carefully considered the evidence, including pre-summoning material, and had rejected proceeding under the SC/ST Act while accepting the other charges, indicating a non-mechanical approach.
The Court further noted that issues relating to the authorship and attribution of the Instagram content remained open and were to be examined during the trial. The existence of previous disputes or the filing of a closure report in a separate complaint by the petitioners did not warrant quashing the present proceedings.
Emphasizing that reappreciation of evidence and disputed questions of fact are impermissible at this stage, the Court found no manifest illegality or abuse of process in the summoning order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the trial process was allowed to continue.
This ruling underscores the principle that summoning is a procedural step requiring only prima facie satisfaction based on the material before the Court, while substantive determinations are reserved for trial.
Bottom Line:
At the stage of summoning, the Court is not required to determine whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction but only whether the material placed before the Court discloses sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 115(2), 131, 133, 351(2), 352, 356, Section 3(5); Information Technology Act, 2000 Sections 66C, 66D, 67; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Meenal Agarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981939
