Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was on Friday issued a summon to appear in court as an accused in a criminal defamation suit filed against him by former BJP president Nitin Gadkari.
Metropolitan Magistrate Gomati Manocha summoned Kejriwal as an accused for April 7, saying, "let the
accused (Kejriwal) be summoned under Section 499/500 (defamation) of the IPC...In these circumstances, this court is prima facie satisfied that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused.”
Needless to say, the accused shall have the liberty to put his defence in the form of exceptions under Section 499 IPC at the time of trial, the magistrate said.
The court also referred to a judgement passed recently by Delhi High Court, saying, “Also in view of the judgement of the High Court of Delhi....This court shall at the time of framing of notice, once again consider the material before it and shall hear the accused on whether an offence has been committed which can be legally tried.”
Senior Advocate Pinki Anand and Advocate Ajay Digpaul, who had appeared for Gadkari, earlier had told the court that Kejriwal had made the statement against the BJP leader with a “malafide intention” to tarnish the image and to lower the dignity of their client. The counsel had contended that Kejriwal made “baseless and false allegation” against Gadkari.
The court on February 18 had recorded the statements of Gadkari and advocate Neeraj as complainant witnesses in the complaint. The court, in its order summoning Kejriwal as an accused, also said, “These statements (made allegedly by Kejriwal) were widely telecast/published. Also, it has been alleged that these statements are false and were made maliciously in order to get political mileage and media attention without there being any basis for making these statements.”
The court also observed that at the stage of summoning the accused in such case, it has to see if there is evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint and not whether “the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction”.