No Relief For AAP Leaders Raghav Chadha, Satyendar Jain As Delhi Court Dismisses Their Appeals Against Summons In Defamation Complaint

On Thursday (9 November), a court in Delhi rejected the revision petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party members Raghav Chadha and Satyendar Jain, maintaining a magistrate court's previous ruling in the defamation case filed by BJP's Chhail Bihari Goswami.

Special Judge MK Nagpal, in dismissing the petitions, stated, "…both these criminal revision petitions are dismissed and the impugned orders dated 16.02.2022 and 09.11.2022 are upheld being perfectly correct and legal on facts as well as in law,”

Goswami had filed a defamation case against five leaders from the AAP, including Atishi, Saurabh Bharadwaj, and Durgesh Pathak, accusing them of making statements regarding alleged misappropriation of around Rs 2,500 crore, belonging to the North MCD, which was under the BJP’s control then.

Chadha had challenged an order passed on 6 February last year by a magistrate court summoning him for the alleged offence.

However, Special Judge MK Nagpal upheld the summoning order, noting the 10-month delay in filing the appeal against the allowed three-month period.

Both Chadha and Jain had also approached the court challenging an order passed in November last year wherein their discharge application was dismissed.

In this case too, Judge Nagpal upheld the order, emphasizing that neither the trial court nor the sessions court does not have the power to release an accused once summoned.

He stated, "The trial court, or even this court, does not have any inherent powers to direct discharge of an accused in such a case at the stage of service of notice of accusation upon him, after he has been summoned by the magistrate in a summons triable case, and the appropriate remedy available to an accused in such a situation is only the extraordinary remedy provided by Section 482 Cr.P.C. to approach the Hon’ble High Court".

Goswami’s counsel, however, argued that since the class or body of persons (in this case, North MCD) defamed by Chadha and Jain was a ‘determinable class’, then every member of the class was defamed.

The counsels of Chadha and Jain contended that their comments could not be considered defamatory as they did not specifically accuse Goswami nor mention him by name.

However, Goswami's lawyer countered that since the class or body of persons (in this case, the North MCD) defamed by Chadha and Jain's remarks was a 'determinable class', then every member of the class was defamed.