[ad_1]
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observing that important questions of law are involved, requested Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf to appear and address it in the quashing plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi against a defamation case over his 2018 remark made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Justice Sarang Kotwal said it was necessary for the AG to address the court over an issue raised by Gandhi’s lawyer of a legal bar on the complainant from having filed the defamation complaint. The lawyer, Sudeep Pasbola referred to section 199 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC) that stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) “except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence’’.
Pasbola also said the section provides for special procedures when a complaint is against Ministers or public servants of his conduct in discharge of his public functions and said a complaint in writing is needed by a public prosecutor. He submitted that, the political party is not an identifiable group of persons and, therefore, the Respondent No.2 could not have filed the complaint in his representative capacity.’’
Nitin Pradhan, counsel for the complainant, Mahesh Shrishrimal, said his client himself is an aggrieved person. He is a member of ‘BJP Maharashtra Pradesh Committee’ and, therefore, in that capacity he was entitled to file the complaint and even made the averments in the statement recorded by the police in their inquiry, said Pradhan.
Justice Kotwal then said, “Considering these submissions, it is quite clear that the matter involves important questions of law, including special procedure provided under section 199 CrPC’’ and deemed it necessary for the AG to elucidate on the legal issues involved in this case and adjourned the matter to October 17.
Justice Sarang Kotwal said it was necessary for the AG to address the court over an issue raised by Gandhi’s lawyer of a legal bar on the complainant from having filed the defamation complaint. The lawyer, Sudeep Pasbola referred to section 199 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC) that stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of defamation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) “except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence’’.
Pasbola also said the section provides for special procedures when a complaint is against Ministers or public servants of his conduct in discharge of his public functions and said a complaint in writing is needed by a public prosecutor. He submitted that, the political party is not an identifiable group of persons and, therefore, the Respondent No.2 could not have filed the complaint in his representative capacity.’’
Nitin Pradhan, counsel for the complainant, Mahesh Shrishrimal, said his client himself is an aggrieved person. He is a member of ‘BJP Maharashtra Pradesh Committee’ and, therefore, in that capacity he was entitled to file the complaint and even made the averments in the statement recorded by the police in their inquiry, said Pradhan.
Justice Kotwal then said, “Considering these submissions, it is quite clear that the matter involves important questions of law, including special procedure provided under section 199 CrPC’’ and deemed it necessary for the AG to elucidate on the legal issues involved in this case and adjourned the matter to October 17.
[ad_2]
Source link
More Stories
Congress replaces Kamal Nath, names an OBC as Madhya Pradesh chief | India News
Fire breaks out in ITBP camp in Srinagar; none hurt | India News
Parliament Security: Co-villagers give clean chit to Lalit Jha, parents to move court | India News