Read Time: 05 minutes
The single-judge bench allowed Jain to withdraw his plea, granting him permission to initiate appropriate proceedings in the trial court.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Minister Satyendar Jain to approach the Trial court to challenge the criminal defamation complaint filed by Delhi Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) Leader Chhail Bihari Goswami.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Jain, contended that “even if we assume that I (Jain) said all the alleged statements, based on Manoj Tiwari’s case in the Supreme Court, it does not qualify as defamation”.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma asked John, “Why did you not approach the trial court in a revision petition, Why lose a forum?”
John sought permission to withdraw the plea with the liberty to approach the Trial Court.
Justice Sharma allowed the withdrawal and granted permission to approach the Trial Court by way of a revision petition.
Delhi BJP Leader Chhail had filed a complaint against Jain alleging that he made several defamatory statements against him in press conferences in connection with the misappropriation of funds from North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC).
Recently, in November, 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." Accordingly, the court dismissed Aam Aadmi Part leaders Satyendar Jain, Atishi Marlena, Raghav Chaddha, Durgesh Pathak, and Saurabh Bhardwaj's application seeking discharge from offences of defamation in a case filed by Goswami.
In February this year, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey of a Delhi court summoned Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) leaders Satyendar Jain, Atishi, Raghav Chadha, Sourabh Bharadwaj and Durgesh Pathak who have been accused of defamation by a BJP's Chhail Bihari Goswami.
Chhail had alleged that the Government of NCT led by AAP is not releasing funds of 13,000 crores to three municipal corporations under BJP, which have been allocated for development work. He had submitted that the accused are misleading the general public and creating a negative image of the BJP.
Furthermore, Chhail had claimed that the accused persons conducted themselves in the above manner to lower his 'moral' and intellectual character before the public. Hence, he had claimed their acts were punishable under Section 499 IPC read with Section 500 and 34 IPC. Accordingly, the AAP leaders were summoned on March 14, 2022.
Case Title: Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Chhail Bihari Goswami
Please Login or Register
