Delhi court dismisses Gehlot’s appeal against defamation plea

A Delhi court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by former Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot against his summoning in a criminal defamation complaint filed by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat. Additional Sessions Judge M K Nagpal rejected Gehlot’s appeal, filed against an order passed by a magisterial court, saying that the order did not suffer from any factual mistake, illegality or impropriety of finding.

”It is held that even the impugned order dated July 6, 2023 passed by the ACMM (Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) in the above criminal complaint does not suffer from any factual mistake or illegality or impropriety of finding etc,” the judge said. The judge took note of the submission made by Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, who was appearing for the complainant, that at the of summoning of an accused, the court magisterial court was not required to enter into any detailed discussion or appreciation about correctness or admissibility etc of the evidence as it can be adjudicated only at the end of trial and on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of trial.

Shekhawat in his complaint has alleged that Gehlot by way of press conferences, media reports, and social media posts publicly defamed him by linking him to the Sanjivani scam in the state. The judge had earlier refused to stay the proceedings in the complaint but allowed Gehlot to appear before a metropolitan magistrate through video conference.

ACMM Harjeet Singh Jaspal is hearing Union minister and senior Rajasthan BJP leader Shekhawat’s complaint over Gehlot’s alleged remarks linking him to the Sanjivani scam in the state. The case is related to thousands of investors allegedly getting duped of about Rs 900 crore by the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society.

Shekhawat, the Union Jal Shakti Minister and MP from Jodhpur, has alleged in his complaint before the metropolitan magistrate that Gehlot has been making defamatory remarks against him over the alleged scam and trying to tarnish his image and affect his political career. The magisterial court had earlier said the accused ”prima facie” made defamatory imputations against the complainant, knowing and intending to harm his reputation.