Aastha Thakur
Published on: 30 November 2022 at 22:01 IST
The Delhi High Court while hearing the plea filed in connection with proceedings in a criminal defamation, suggested to exhaust all the alternative remedy first. Jain was asked to approach trial court first in connection of criminal defamation case filed against him by BJP councillor from the erstwhile North MCD Chhail Bihari Goswami.
The single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma gave permission to Satyendra Jain to withdraw the plea, granting him the liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings before the trial court. The High Court made it clear right away that it won’t address the case’s merits.
The Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Jain was asked the reason behind not approaching the trial court in a revision petition.
The counsel submitted that as the case is based on all the alleged statements said by appellant, it does not amount to defamation actually. Still court stressed that to give your submission before Additional Sessions Judge.
Goswami filed a defamation lawsuit against a number of AAP politicians, including Jain, alleging that they had made a number of false claims during press conferences, tweets, etc., claiming that BJP leaders and the former North MCD had embezzled more than Rs 2,400 crore.
In February, the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had summoned Jain, Atishi, Raghav Chadha, Sourabh Bharadwaj, and Durgesh Pathak on the criminal defamation complaint.
The trial court gave its decision that the prima facie of the case shows that the accused persons namely Satyendar Jain, Atishi, Raghav Chadha, Durgesh Pathak, and Saurabh Bharadwaj have committed the offence punishable under Section 499/500 (defamation) IPC read with Section 34 (common intention) IPC.
After this order was passed, Jai and other names accused pleaded relief from the defamation case. The trial court dismissed their plea for discharge adding that, “It has already been settled in law 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”.