Defamation row: Verdict reserved on plea against AAP, KejriwalNew Delhi: A Delhi court today reserved for April 15 its order on a plea filed by the CEO of a news portal challenging a magisterial court's judgement dismissing his criminal defamation complaint against Aam
New Delhi: A Delhi court today reserved for April 15 its order on a plea filed by the CEO of a news portal challenging a magisterial court's judgement dismissing his criminal defamation complaint against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its leaders, including Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Special Judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma reserved verdict on the revision petition after hearing the arguments advanced by petitioner Anuranjan Jha, CEO of news portal Media Sarkar, and counsel appearing for Kejriwal and others.
Jha has challenged the magisterial court's November 14 last year order dismissing his criminal defamation complaint filed against AAP, Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Kumar Vishwas, Yogendra Yadav and Shazia Ilmi.
The magistrate had dismissed his plea on the ground that despite providing sufficient opportunities to Jha to lead pre-summoning evidence in support of his plea, he opted not to do so.
Jha had only examined himself in support of his plea. During the arguments on the revision petition, senior advocate H S Phoolka, who appeared for Kejriwal and others, told the court that Jha had not led any evidence in support of his complaint before the magisterial court and no case was made out against his clients.
Phoolka also argued that even the prime facie ingredients of defamation was not present in his complaint. In his revision petition, Jha has said the magistrate had failed to appreciate that from his sworn statements and documents produced by him, it was clear that the leaders had made alleged defamatory imputations against him.
He claimed that the magisterial court also failed to appreciate that allegations in his complaint prima facie established that the leaders had defamed him. Earlier in 2013, AAP had also filed a criminal defamation complaint against Jha for releasing a “doctored” video before the then assembly elections allegedly showing some party candidates accepting funds through illegal means.
The sting operation alleged that several AAP leaders, who were contacted for their help in recovering money from some individuals and getting through some controversial land deals, readily agreed to extend their support in return for donations in cash to the party.
The charges were dismissed as baseless by AAP. Jha had in November 2013 filed a similar complaint against AAP and some of its leaders before a magisterial court alleging that they had defamed him.