A Delhi court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by former Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot against his summoning in the criminal defamation complaint filed by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat.
Additional Sessions Judge MK Nagpal rejected Gehlot’s appeal filed against an order passed by a magisterial court, stating that the order didn’t suffer from any factual mistake, illegality, or impropriety of finding.
The judge stated, “It is held that even the impugned order dated July 6, 2023, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the above criminal complaint doesn’t suffer from any factual mistake or illegality or impropriety of finding, etc.”
Furthermore, the judge took note of the submission made by Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, who was appearing for the complainant, that at the time of summoning of an accused, the magisterial court wasn’t required to enter into any detailed discussion or appreciation about the correctness or admissibility, etc., of the evidence as it can be adjudicated only at the end of the trial and based on evidence adduced during the course of the trial.
Shekhawat, in his complaint, 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.
Earlier, the judge refused to stay the proceedings in the complaint but allowed Gehlot to appear before a metropolitan magistrate through video conference.
ACMM Harjeet Singh Jaspal heard the 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 affecting his political career.
The magisterial court said that the accused “prima facie” made defamatory imputations against the complainant, knowing and intending to harm his reputation.
