Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi Special Court has dismissed Aam Aadmi Part leaders Satyendra Jain, Atishi Marlena, Raghav Chaddha, Durgesh Pathak and Saurabh Bhardwaj's application seeking discharge from offences of defamation in a case filed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Chhail Bihari Goswami.

The Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vidhi Gupta Anand, Rouse Avenue Court noted that "in a summons case there is no scope of discharge of the Accused by the Trial Court or of recalling/review of the summoning order."

Chhail had alleged that the Delhi Government led by AAP is not releasing funds of Rs. 13,000 crores to 3 municipal corporations under BJP, allocated for development work. Chhail has submitted that the accused are misleading the general public and creating negative image of BJP.

Chhail alleged that withholding of the funds by the Delhi Government is aimed at tarnishing the reputation and credibility of him and his party members.

In their statements AAP leaders namely Satyender Jain, Atishi Marlena, Raghav Chaddha, Saurabh Bhardwaj and Durgesh Pathak said, Chhail had committed a scam of Rs.2,500 crores which were not expected from him.

However, Senior Advocate Manish Vashisht appearing for the accused had argued that the present complaint has only been filed to harass the accused persons and to attain political mileage for the upcoming elections of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

Additionally, it was argued that the complainant has not been able to bring either in his complaint or in the evidence tendered by him that he is an aggrieved person. It was argued that even the basic ingredients to constitute the offence of defamation, as defined in Section 499 IPC, are absent and thus, accused persons deserve to be discharged from the present case.

With respect to accused Satyender Jain, it was argued that he has merely stated that he came to know through newspapers that North MCD has misappropriated funds over Rs. 2,400 crores and therefore, he ordered an enquiry for the same. 

Referring to the tweet made by Satyender Jain, Vashisht argued that it has merely been stated that orders have been issued to investigate misappropriation of Rs. 2400 Crore by BJP run North MCD and complainant has not been specifically named in the tweet.

Whereas, the Counsel for the Chhail referred to the statements given by the accused Atishi Marlena stating that during her Press Conference she has specifically used the term “BJP’s North MCD Leaders” which directly referred to the complainant as the complainant was Chairperson of the North MCD at that time.

The counsel also referred to a newspaper report dated December 14, 2020, and tweet made by the said Raghav Chaddha and stated that again repeated reference to BJP Leaders of MCD have been made by the said accused stating that they have committed corruption. Similar arguments were placed in reference to the accused Saurabh Bhardwaj and Durgesh Pathak.

In regard to accused Satyender Jain, Counsel for Chhail referred to tweet made by him wherein it has been specifically stated that misappropriation of hefty amount of Rs. 2400 crore has been done by BJP run North MCD and argued that undoubtedly yet again reputation of the complainant has been put at stake by stating on the public forum that he has committed corruption.

In view of the above, the Court noted that answer to the question as to whether the accused persons should face trial in this matter or not simply depends on the answer to the question as to whether in a summons case accused persons can be discharged or not after having been summoned in the court.

Whereas, after relying on various judgments the Court opined that in a summons triable case, once summons have been issued, neither can the summoning order be recalled nor can the accused be discharged by a trial court.

Additionally, the issue whether prima-facie case is made out against the Accused persons or not has already been answered by the Court vide its summoning order dated February 16, 2022, stating that prima facie accused persons namely Satyender Jain, Aatishi Marlena, Raghav Chadha, Durgesh Pathak and Sourabh Bhardwaj have committed the offence punishable U/s 499/500 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, whereafter they were summoned in the court.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the discharge application filed by Satyendra Jain, Atishi Marlena, Raghav Chaddha, Durgesh Pathak and Saurabh Bhardwaj.

Case Title: Chhail Bihari Goswami v. Satyendra Jain & Ors.