Delhi HC Upholds Trial Court’s Refusal to Discharge TV Today in Defamation Case Filed by BJP Leader Ramesh Bidhuri

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld a trial court order refusing to discharge TV Today Network Ltd., owner of Aaj Tak and India Today Group, in a criminal defamation case filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ramesh Bidhuri.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the media house’s plea challenging the trial court's order, which had rejected its application for discharge. The High Court held that in a summons triable case, a Metropolitan Magistrate does not have the power to discharge an accused.

The judgment was passed while hearing petitions filed by TV Today Network under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the trial court’s refusal to drop proceedings.

The case arises from a news broadcast on August 10, 2011, reporting a gang rape and abduction case involving one Sunny. In the telecast, Sunny was described as the brother-in-law of the nephew of Ramesh Bidhuri, who at the time was an elected MLA from Tughlakabad.

The report criticised the alleged police inaction in arresting Sunny while his co-accused had already been taken into custody.

Aggrieved by the telecast, Bidhuri filed a criminal complaint alleging that the news item falsely linked him to the accused and implied that political influence was being used to shield Sunny, thereby harming his reputation.

Similarly, Rajpal Poswal, Bidhuri’s nephew, filed another complaint alleging identical defamatory content. Both complainants claimed the broadcast was “malicious, defamatory, misleading and intended to tarnish their reputation before the public.”

TV Today Network argued that it had merely reported facts based on official records and that no direct or personal imputation was made against the complainants. It claimed the broadcast was carried out in good faith and in public interest, and that the complaints lacked the essential ingredients of criminal defamation.

Addressing the petitioner’s argument, the Court observed, "The contention of the petitioners that the Magistrate could have invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 251 is misconceived. The power to ‘drop proceedings’ or ‘recall summons’ is neither expressly conferred by the Code nor can it be inferred by implication, ”the Court said.

Clarifying the scope of Section 251 Cr.P.C., the Court added, “Section 251 Cr. PC. contemplates only that the particulars of the offence be explained to the accused. It does not empower the Magistrate to undertake a mini-trial or to evaluate defences on merits. The stage for consideration of such issues would arise only when evidence is led.”

It further clarified, “Consequently, once the Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons upon satisfaction that a prima facie case exists, he is left with no power to recall or annul his earlier order by entertaining a discharge application.”

Holding the petition to be not maintainable, the Court said, “In light of the settled position of law and judicial precedents, the applications filed by the petitioners before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking discharge were not maintainable. The impugned order dated 13.12.2018, dismissing the same, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.”

The Court also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the summoning order dated September 20, 2014, and therefore, the relief of discharge could not be granted.

With these observations, the Court dismissed the petitions and disposed of all pending applications.

Case Title: Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LTD. & ORS v. RAMESH BIDHURI and other connected matters

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja 

Order Date: 4 November 2025