Read Time: 07 minutes
Goswami had filed a defamation case against five AAP leaders alleging that they had made statements regarding the alleged misappropriation of around Rs 2,500 crore belonging to the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), which was under BJP’s control then
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Chhail Bihari Goswami on a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain challenging the summons issued to him by a trial court in a criminal defamation complaint filed by Goswami.
The high court, however, refused to stay the trial court proceedings at the present stage.
“I am not convinced to stay the proceedings. I need to hear them. I need to see the trial court record,” the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said. Accordingly, the court fixed the matter for hearing on December 14.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Jain.
In related news, AAP MP Raghav Chadha also moved the High Court on Monday, i.e., November 20, challenging the same trial court order dismissing the appeal filed against the summons in a criminal defamation complaint lodged by Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Chhail Bihari Goswami.
During the hearing, the counsel for Chadha apprised the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma that some additional documents need to be filed in the matter.
Taking note of the submission, the single-judge bench had said, "Then, I will not issue notice in the matter". The court will consider Chadha's plea on December 11.
Background
Notably, on November 9, a Delhi Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Satyender Jain and Raghav Chadha in a criminal defamation complaint lodged by Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Chhail Bihari Goswami.
Special Judge M K Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court dismissed their appeal against a Magisterial Court's order summoning them as accused in the matter.
“…both these criminal revision petitions are dismissed, and the impugned orders dated 16.02.2022 and 09.11.2022 are upheld being perfectly correct and legal on facts as well as in law", the court had said.
Goswami had filed a defamation case against five AAP leaders, including Atishi Marlena, Saurabh Bharadwaj, and Durgesh Pathak. He alleged that the leaders had made statements regarding the alleged misappropriation of around Rs 2,500 crore belonging to the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), which was under the BJP’s control then. Goswami was the chairperson of the NDMC Standing Committee.
He alleged that the two AAP leaders made the remarks to “lower the moral and intellectual character of the complainant in the eyes of the general public”.
Chadha had challenged an order passed on February 6, 2022, by a Magistrate Court summoning him for the alleged offence.
The court upheld the summoning order observing that there was a 10-month delay in filing the revision petition and only a three-month delay was allowed.
Both AAP leaders, Chadha and Jain, had also approached the court, challenging an order passed in November 2022 whereby their discharge application was dismissed.
The judge upheld the order passed in November 2022, noting that the trial court or the sessions court does not have the power to discharge an accused after he has been summoned.
“The trial court, or even this court, does not have any inherent powers to direct discharge of an accused in such a case at the stage of service of notice of accusation upon him, after he has been summoned by the magistrate in a summons triable case, and the appropriate remedy available to an accused in such a situation is only the extraordinary remedy provided by Section 482 Cr.P.C. to approach the Hon’ble High Court,” the court said.
Case Title: Satyendar Jain v. State & Anr.
Please Login or Register
