New Delhi:
The Delhi High court on Tuesday issued notice to Chief Minister Atishi Marlena on a petition moved by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor.
Mr Kapoor has challenged the trial court order quashing of summons issued to Atishi Marlena in a defamation case filed by him. Justice Vikas Mahajan after noting the submissions by Senior advocate Ajay Burman for petitioner.
The court said that in view of submission made by the counsel for petitioner the matter required consideration. Issued notice through all permissible modes, the High court said.
The next date is April 30 for hearing on the petition.
CM Atishi had challenged the summons issued to her on Defamation complaint filed by Mr Kapoor. Her plea against the summons was allowed. The same order has been challenged before the High court by Praveen Shankar Kapoor.
He has challenged the trial court order quashing summons issued to CM Atishi. She had challenged the Summoning order.
Senior advocate Ajay Burman alongwith Advocates Neeraj, Pavan Narang, Satya Ranjan Swain, Shoumendu Mukherji and Punit Dhawan appeared for Mr Kapoor.
Senior counsel Burman argued that the revision court went beyond its jurisdiction by calling a status report on the Complaint filed by Delhi State BJP Unit head Virender Sachdeva while quashing the summons. The revision court observed like a political analyst, the counsel argued.
It was also argued that Atishi was not a whistle blower as she did not file any complaint neither provide any source of her allegations. It was alleged that Kejriwal and Atishi made false allegations against BJP in a press confrence. The same allegations were retweeted by Atishi Marlena.
It was submitted that the magistrate court had issued summons to CM Atishi by passing a detailed order on the complaint filed by Praveen Shankar Kapoor.
The revision court had also called a report in complaint filed by the State BJP head from the police which is out of its jurisdiction, the senior counsel argued.
The revision court used this position against me (Kapoor ) saying that you can’t file a defamation complaint as there is a criminal complaint filed is pending into the Allegations made by Kejriwal and CM Atishi.
The respondent till date are not able to provided any material in support of their allegations. Detailed summoning order was passed. She never gave any evidence for the allegations she levelled, cousnsel for petitioner submitted.
The High court perused the report filed by crime branch on January 6, 2025.
It was submitted serious false allegations were levelled by Arvind Kejriwal against the BJP. It was alleged that 21 MLAs were contacted. Rs. 24 crores were offered to each MLA, 7 MLAs Were offered Rs. 25 crore. The same allegations were made by Atishi Marlena
It was argued by the counsel that Till date they have not provided any information about the source of their allegations.
“If she was a whistle blower, she should have filed a complaint,” the counsel argued.
It was alleged that Arvind Kejriwal was to be arrested, their government will fell, you (MLAs) will be given a chance to contest election.
It was also also alleged that BJP under operation lotus, 7 members of AAP were contacted and Rs. 25 crore offered. No source of information was given, the counsel argued.
She alleged that she was informed by one of her close person that if she doesn’t join BJP, she would be arrested.
Allegations are defamatory per se defamatory, the counsel argued.
The petition also mentioned the transcription which reads ….Through this I was approached to join Bharatiya Janata Party and Iwas told that either I join Bharatiya Janata Party and save my career and advance my political career and if I do not join Bharatiya Janata Party then I will be arrested by ED within the next one month.
The counsel also pointed out that the revision court also said that BJP is big political party and AAP is a smaller party. AAP is a largest party in Delhi, the cousnsel added.
It was also argued that No complaint was made by her (Atishi) for the allegations she made. No source, no complaint, how can she be a whistle blower when she has not filed a complaint.
It was also argued that being the media head and spokesperson of Delhi BJP is the aggrieved person as the allegations were against the party to which he is associated. Person aggrieved may be directly or indirectly, senior advocate submitted.
On January 30, BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor has moved to the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the order of the Rouse Avenue court that had set aside the summons issued to CM Atishi in a Defamation case.
Mr Kapoor has filed a petition praying quashing of the order of 28.1.2025 passed by the special judge of Rouse Avenue Court of that set aside the order of 28.5.2024 summoning the Delhi CM Atishi Marlena and has dismissed the complaint under Section 200 CrPC filed by the petitioner.
The petition moved through advocate Satya Ranjan Swain Shoumendu Mukherjee has stated that the Special Judge has gravely erred by substituting his own views in a revision proceeding over the discretion of the Magistrate and thus contravened the solemn principles as expounded in the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt Nagawwa Vs Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others.
It is further stated that the special judge has ventured into political adventurism akin to a political discourse by attempting to determine who is a bigger / smaller political entity, which was not at all and never be the scope of adjudication in revision proceedings.
The Special Judge did not even permit the Complainant to have a trial in order to make good his allegations. The Ld. Special Judge’s reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S Khushboo vs Kanniammal and Subramaniam Swamy v Union of India, is erroneous and an outcome of selective reading.
It is further stated that in the present case, there exists an identifiable group / association / collection of persons namely the Bharatiya Janata Party and legal injury has been effected on its members, more so its office bearers. The party has membership and the members of the party form an identifiable group, so any defamatory imputation made against the party can make its member fall under the term ‘some person aggrieved.’
Hence, the Special Judge (MP/MLA Cases) has failed to appreciate Explanation II of Section 499 of IPC -which clearly states that making an imputation concerning a collection of persons would tantamount to defamation, the plea said.
It is submitted that an individual’s reputation which has been included in the right to life cannot be given a go-by at the expense of the elevated ideal of “freedom of speech”. This balancing of the rights is also propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The plea said that the Special Judge has chosen to undermine the other binding precedents of the Supreme Court which hold that when a well defined class is defamed, every particular of that class can file a complaint even if the defamatory imputation in question does not mention him by name.
It is also said that the Special Judge (MP/MLA Cases) failed to appreciate that in the press conference, the Respondent deliberately did not disclose the identity of the person who approached her. Moreover, the details are not even disclosed to the Enquiry Officer of the Crime Branch -who had sent a notice along with a questionnaire to both the accused persons to give their following information. The complaint made to the Commissioner of Police was to ring loud the hollowness / falsity in the allegations made by respondents. The Special Judge has completely misread the lack of response by both the Accused Persons as well as the Status Report filed by the Crime Branch.
It is further said that the Special Judge (MP/MLA Cases) has intermingled the allegations against Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi Marlena. It is submitted that the role of the Atishi Marlena is greater in comparison to that of the Arvind Kejriwal.
Mr Kapoor has said in the petition that Order passed by the Special judge needs to be quashed as there are various legal infirmities in the said Order. The Special Judge (MP/MLA Cases) has transgressed from the criminal complaint and has dealt with issues which are of little significance to the case in hand. Hence the present Petition.
The case stems from allegations made by CM Atishi, accusing the BJP of attempting to poach AAP MLAs. In his petition, Mr Kapoor has sought the quashing of the trial court’s order and the revival of the original defamation case. Mr Kapoor argues that the trial court’s decision contains legal flaws, asserting that the Special Judge (MP/MLA Cases) deviated from the criminal complaint and addressed matters irrelevant to the core issue.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Source link
