[Defamation complaint by Mahua Moitra] Delhi court dismisses Sudhir Chaudhary's plea against summons by trial court

A Delhi court has dismissed a revision petition filed by Zee TV Editor-in-Chief, Sudhir Chaudhary challenging the summoning order issued to him by the trial court in a defamation case initiated by Trinamool Congress Party MP, Mahua Moitra ( Sudhir Chaudhary vs. State ).

. Additional Sessions Judge, Anil Antil found that summoning order did not suffer from illegality or perversity and required no interference by the revisional court.

The dispute arose when Chaudhary, in a broadcast on Zee News which was aired on July 2, 2019, alleged that a speech delivered by Moitra in parliament was plagiarised from an article authored by one Martin Longmean which had appeared on a American website, Washington Monthly.

Moitra said that her speech elaborated and explained in detail how the seven signs of fascism are applicable to the prevailing situation in India.

The segment was aired despite Moitra expressly clarifying that the same was taken from a poster at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in the United States of America.

. It was contended that Chaudhary deliberately played edited portions of the speech without the parts where Moitra had mentioned the source. The broadcast by Chaudhary was also uploaded on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

. Moitra submitted that the words spoken by Chaudhary in the programme were all intended to severely and irreversibly damage, lower the credibility, reputation and integrity of the complainant (Moitra) in the eyes of her family members, friends, relatives, citizens of India as well as among her friends and well-wishers all over the globe.

. She also contended that since he resides outside the jurisdiction of the trial court, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry before summoning the accused.

. Chaudhary argued that the essential ingredients of the offence of defamation have not been fulfilled as the telecast was in the interest of the larger public.

Further, it was argued that Moitra has made statements in the past that have also shown a striking resemblance to statements by others.

. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for Moitra, submitted that the petition was simply an attempt by Chaudhary to stall the proceedings before the trial court pointing out how the same was filed even before the summoning order of the trial court.

. Further, it was submitted that the defamatory nature of the broadcast cannot be based on conjecture at a preliminary stage and the same must be decided by way of trial.

. The Sessions Judge found that the trial court had discussed the requirements of inquiry and appreciated the evidence as per statutory requirements.

There is no specific mode of inquiry and only witnesses have to be examined under Section 202 of the CrPC for the purpose of the same, the Sessions Judge held. That mandate was fulfilled by the trial court and the order passed by it did not suffer from illegality, it was ruled.

“ Records indicate that vide order dated 16.08.2019, the learned MM specifically states, “arguments heard on the aspect of inquiry u/s 202 CrPC and on the point of summoning, ” the Court said.

. Therefore, the Court ruled that the objection of the petitioner to say that order is cryptic, without application of judicial mind cannot be sustained.

. The Court went on to observe that the questions concerning merits such as relevancy, admissibility of the documents and its evidentiary value should be dealt with during the course of trial by the MM.

It, therefore, dismissed Chaudhary's petition.

. [Read Order]

[Defamation complaint by Mahua Moitra] Delhi court dismisses Sudhir Chaudhary's plea against summons by trial court

Shagun Suryam

Related Stories