Mahua Moitra moves Delhi HC challenging stay of defamation proceedings against Sudhir Chaudhary

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has moved the Delhi High Court challenging an order which stayed the proceedings in her criminal defamation case against Zee News Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary. .The matter was listed for hearing before a Single judge Bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi..The order of stay was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Rakesh Syal in a revision petition preferred by Sudhir Chaudhary..Mahua Moitra had filed the criminal defamation case against Chaudhary after he alleged that Moitra’s June 25 speech in Parliament on the ‘Seven Signs of Fascism’, was plagiarized..Meanwhile, Chaudhary also approached the courts by filing an application under Section 340 CrPC to initiate criminal action against Moitra for her “false” criminal defamation case and for “playing fraud” with the court. This case is currently pending..After concluding the pre-summoning in the defamation case, Metropolitan Magistrate Preeti Parewa had posted the case for orders on the issue of summons..Before the Sessions Court, Chaudhary raised objections on the ground that the Metropolitan Magistrate proceeded with the defamation case without hearing the application under Section 340..Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Court stayed the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate..Assailing the order, Moitra today argued that the order of the Sessions Court was erroneous as it had no power to stall pre-summoning proceedings under revision jurisdiction..Appearing for Moitra, Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan also pointed out that the order challenged before the Sessions Court was an order which had deferred further hearing on Chaudhary’s Section 340 application..“Revisional court does not enter into picture…it was an order of adjournment.”.She also clarified that she was not challenging the merits of the Section 340 application before the High Court, as the same would be decided at the time of trial..Advocate Siddharth Agarwal added that in exercise of the writ of certiorari, the High Court had wide powers to deal with instances of excessive and palpably erroneous juridiction as in the present case..Appearing for Chaudhary, Advocate Mudit Jain argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the Section 340 application ought to be decided first..Standing Counsel for the Delhi Government, Advocate Rahul Mehra submitted that since it was a private complaint, the State Government had no role to play in it..After hearing the parties, the Court directed Chaudhary to file his response to the petition before October 14..Thereafter, the Court will pronounce its order in the petition in a day or two, Justice Sethi remarked as he clarified that there would be no further arguments in the case..The matter is listed for further hearing before the Additional Sessions Court on October 18.