Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday issued summons to Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot in a criminal defamation case filed by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat over the veteran Congress leader’s remarks related to alleged multi-crore Sanjeevani Cooperative Society scam.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal of the special court asked Gehlot to appear before the court in the national capital on August 7, noting “sufficient grounds” to summon him under section 500 (deals with defamation) of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegations prima facie seem to be defamatory and appear to be intending to harm the reputation of the complainant, the court said.
“At the initial stage, the Court has to look into the complaint and the statement/evidence of the complainant and has to believe him. The Court has to see whether the impugned material is prima facie defamatory or not and whether the Court has sufficient grounds to proceed with the case,” read the order.
Shekhawat filed the criminal defamation suit against Gehlot after the latter allegedly made a statement regarding the former’s alleged involvement in the Sanjeevani scam.
Shekhawat has alleged in his plea that Gehlot made the defamatory allegations in February 2023 after meeting some people who lost their investment in Sanjeevani. These aggrieved people alleged that Shekhawat was involved in the scam.
It is Shekhawat’s case that Gehlot was speaking to the media where he named the Jal Shakti minister and asked how such people become ministers in the Modi government.
The very next day, Shekhawat held a press conference where he refuted the allegations.
In his complaint, the Union Minister said, he is neither named in the FIR in the year 2019 registered at SOG police station, Jaipur nor has he been charge-sheeted or put in as accused in any of the chargesheets filed so far, additionally, he has never been summoned by the Rajasthan State Police in the said matter.
The Delhi court on Thursday said, “utterances of the statements (of Gehlot) like ‘the complainant has purchased properties in foreign countries from the proceeds of Sanjeevani scam’, ‘the crime of the complainant has been proved’ and that ‘the complainant is trying to mislead the general public on Sanjeevani scam’ are squarely an illustration of defamatory statements.”
Through the discussions, in the 22-page order, the court said, “It appears that the accused by his spoken words and by words which were intended to be read, have made defamatory imputations against the complainant, knowing and intending to harm the reputation of the complainant. ”
The court held, at the stage of issue of process, it cannot be expected to hold a mini trial or to go in the merits of the matter in detail or even to examine the evidence on the scale of ‘beyond reasonable doubts’, the evidence needs only a prima facie examination.
It was also specified that the discussion in the order “cannot be said to be a comment on the final merits of the case, as the same is a matter of trial.”
NEW DELHI: Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday issued summons to Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot in a criminal defamation case filed by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat over the veteran Congress leader’s remarks related to alleged multi-crore Sanjeevani Cooperative Society scam.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal of the special court asked Gehlot to appear before the court in the national capital on August 7, noting “sufficient grounds” to summon him under section 500 (deals with defamation) of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegations prima facie seem to be defamatory and appear to be intending to harm the reputation of the complainant, the court said.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
“At the initial stage, the Court has to look into the complaint and the statement/evidence of the complainant and has to believe him. The Court has to see whether the impugned material is prima facie defamatory or not and whether the Court has sufficient grounds to proceed with the case,” read the order.
Shekhawat filed the criminal defamation suit against Gehlot after the latter allegedly made a statement regarding the former’s alleged involvement in the Sanjeevani scam.
Shekhawat has alleged in his plea that Gehlot made the defamatory allegations in February 2023 after meeting some people who lost their investment in Sanjeevani. These aggrieved people alleged that Shekhawat was involved in the scam.
It is Shekhawat’s case that Gehlot was speaking to the media where he named the Jal Shakti minister and asked how such people become ministers in the Modi government.
The very next day, Shekhawat held a press conference where he refuted the allegations.
In his complaint, the Union Minister said, he is neither named in the FIR in the year 2019 registered at SOG police station, Jaipur nor has he been charge-sheeted or put in as accused in any of the chargesheets filed so far, additionally, he has never been summoned by the Rajasthan State Police in the said matter.
The Delhi court on Thursday said, “utterances of the statements (of Gehlot) like ‘the complainant has purchased properties in foreign countries from the proceeds of Sanjeevani scam’, ‘the crime of the complainant has been proved’ and that ‘the complainant is trying to mislead the general public on Sanjeevani scam’ are squarely an illustration of defamatory statements.”
Through the discussions, in the 22-page order, the court said, “It appears that the accused by his spoken words and by words which were intended to be read, have made defamatory imputations against the complainant, knowing and intending to harm the reputation of the complainant. ”
The court held, at the stage of issue of process, it cannot be expected to hold a mini trial or to go in the merits of the matter in detail or even to examine the evidence on the scale of ‘beyond reasonable doubts’, the evidence needs only a prima facie examination.
It was also specified that the discussion in the order “cannot be said to be a comment on the final merits of the case, as the same is a matter of trial.”
