The Delhi High Court has refused to discharge TV Today Network in a criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri over a 2011 Aaj Tak report, upholding the Magistrate’s order. The Court ruled that once summons are issued in a summons trial, the Magistrate cannot recall or annul the order.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed two petitions filed by India Today in connection with criminal defamation cases filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ramesh Bidhuri and his nephew Rajpal Poswal.
The case was related to a 2011 news report aired by Aaj Tak. The High Court upheld the earlier order of the Magistrate court, refusing to discharge India Today from the case.
The matter goes back to 2011 when Aaj Tak, a Hindi news channel under TV Today Network, broadcasted a report on a gang rape and abduction case involving one accused named Sunny.
The report allegedly identified Sunny as the brother-in-law of Rajpal Poswal and indirectly linked BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri, who was then an MLA from Tughlakabad constituency. The broadcast implied that political influence was being used to shield the accused.
Feeling aggrieved, both Bidhuri and Poswal filed separate defamation complaints, claiming that the report was false and defamatory. They said it harmed their personal and political reputation by falsely connecting them to a criminal case.
After examining the matter, a Magistrate court in September 2014 issued summons to the TV Today Network and others.
Later, the media company sought to be discharged from the case, arguing that it had only reported facts in good faith and in the public interest. However, in December 2018, a Magistrate dismissed the discharge applications, stating that he had no authority to discharge the accused in a summons trial case.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court upheld the Magistrate’s ruling. The Court observed that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons after being satisfied that a prima facie case exists, he cannot later recall or cancel that order by entertaining a discharge application.
The High Court stated,
“In light of the settled position of law and judicial precedents, the Court is of the view that the applications filed by the petitioners before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate seeking discharge were not maintainable. The impugned order dated 13.12.2018, dismissing the same, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.”
Justice Dudeja further agreed with the argument made by Bidhuri that since India Today had never challenged the 2014 summoning order, it could not seek discharge at a later stage.
The Court noted,
“Petitioners have not challenged the summoning order dated 20.09.2014 in the present petition, and therefore in view of the same, the relief sought for discharge, cannot be granted.”
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, appearing for Ramesh Bidhuri, argued that the Aaj Tak news report was “deliberately sensationalized and designed to malign” his client’s “personal and political reputation.”
He also submitted that because this case was a summons triable case, there was no legal provision that allowed for discharge.
On the other side, Advocate Hrishikesh Baruah, representing TV Today Network, argued that even though the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not specifically mention discharge in summons cases, a Magistrate has the inherent power to drop proceedings if the complaint does not disclose any offence.
He said that this inherent power is part of the Magistrate’s duty to ensure that no one faces trial unnecessarily.
However, the Court did not accept this argument. It clarified that the Magistrate does not have inherent powers under Section 251 of the CrPC to recall the earlier order or drop proceedings.
Justice Dudeja explained that Section 251 of the CrPC only requires that the particulars of the offence be explained to the accused and does not allow the Magistrate to conduct a “mini-trial” or assess defences at that stage.
The Court said,
“Section 251 CrPC only contemplates that the particulars of the offence be explained to the accused and does not empower the Magistrate to undertake a mini-trial or to evaluate defences on merits at that stage.”
Concluding the judgment, the High Court dismissed the petitions and disposed of all pending applications.
ALSO READ: Delhi Lawyers Call Strike on Nov 6 Over Advocate’s ‘False’ Murder Case Implication
The order stated,
“The petitions are accordingly dismissed and disposed of along with pending application (s), if any.”
In the case, Advocates Hrishikesh Baruah, Utkarsh Dwivedi, and Kumar Kshitij appeared on behalf of TV Today Network. Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, along with Advocates Amit Tiwari, Shekhar, Aditya Raj, Ayushi Srivastava, and Ayush Tanwar, represented Ramesh Bidhuri and Rajpal Poswal.
The ruling reiterates that in summons trial cases, once a Magistrate takes cognizance and issues summons after forming an opinion that a prima facie case exists, the accused cannot seek discharge unless the summoning order itself is challenged before a higher court.
Case Title:
Today Network Ltd. & Ors vs. Ramesh Bidhuri
Click Here to Read More Reports On 26/11 Case
