Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has rejected the petition filed by Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut, which sought a stay on the defamation proceedings initiated by lyricist Javed Akhtar.

Justice PD Naik, presiding as a single judge on the bench, rejected Kangana's petition after the bench had reserved its order on January 18, 2024.

Akhtar filed a defamation case against Ranaut following certain remarks she made about him during an interview with Republic TV.

Pertinently, Ranaut had also filed a cross-complaint against Akhtar, alleging criminal conspiracy, extortion, and invasion of privacy.

However, it was only in July 2023 that the magistrate court dropped extortion charges against Akhtar and summoned him for other charges.

Akhtar subsequently filed an application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court stayed criminal proceedings against Akhtar until his revision application before the sessions court was heard.

Nonetheless, the defamation case filed by Akhtar against Ranaut continued, prompting her to approach the high court seeking a stay.

Justice PD Naik in its order stated that Ranaut had preferred a belated application and considering the factual matrix no relief could be granted to Ranaut.

“Ranaut preferred application at a belated stage. Akhtar’s complaint is first in point of time and process has been issued. Considering the factual matrix, no relief can be granted,” the order reads.

In her petition filed through Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Ranaut claimed that the cross-cases filed by Ranaut arose from the same incident that occurred in March 2016, and thus, they were clubbed together to be heard and tried simultaneously by the same magistrate.

However, the proceedings against Akhtar were later stayed by the Sessions Court, which, according to the plea, goes against the established principles of natural justice and fair trial.

In response to the petition, Javed Akhtar has submitted before the high court that Kangana is attempting to delay the proceedings in the defamation case.

“The present Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Petitioner has failed to establish any basis for invoking the Writ jurisdiction. At the same time, the present petition is only filed to delay the proceedings before the Ld. 10th MM, Andheri. This is when the Petitioner has already taken numerous adjournments to delay the matter,” the plea reads.

Case title: Kangana Ranaut vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.