Court rejects plea of news Channel in defamation case, grants opportunity to argue

New Delhi [India], February 3 : The Rouse Avenue court on Monday rejected the plea of a news channel, one of the proposed accused in Satyendra Jain vs Bansuri Swaraj defamation complaint. The channel had argued that the complainant should first be asked to record his evidence before cognizance is taken against the proposed accused.
The court is dealing with a defamation complaint filed by former Delhi Minister Satyendra Jain against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Bansuri Swaraj.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal rejected the plea of the news channel and granted the opportunity to advance arguments on the point of cognizance.
"In view thereof, the plea of proposed accused no.2 (News Channel) that the complainant should first be asked to examine himself in evidence before taking cognizance is rejected," the court ordered on February 3.
The court noted that the arguments on the point of cognizance have already been heard on behalf of the complainant and proposed accused no 1 (Bansuri Swaraj).
Opportunity is given to proposed accused no 2 (News Channel) to advance arguments on the point of cognizance, as per the court.
The court observed, "As far as the submissions made on behalf of proposed accused no.2 to the effect that order of 16.12.2024 was passed without hearing proposed accused no 2 and hence, is not binding on him is concerned, the same is meritless and fallacious."
"There are numerous stages in a criminal trial in which the accused has no or limited right of hearing. The accused cannot be allowed to challenge the said order before the court passes the order on the ground that he was not heard. However, the remedy of assailing the said order before higher forums is always available to him, " the court said in the order.
It was submitted by the Counsel for the proposed accused (News Channel) that the complainant should first be called upon to lead his pre-summoning evidence and it is only thereafter that this court shall decide the question of cognizance. It was further submitted that the question of cognizance and summoning are decided simultaneously.
The court stated that in the order of December 16, 2024, it had already opined that when the Magistrate proceeds under Section 200 CrPC (223 BNSS) for recording the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, if any, it can positively be stated that he has applied his mind and taken cognizance.
Therefore, the submissions made by the Counsel for the proposed accused News Channel run contrary to the observations made in the order dated December 16, 2024, and accepting them would amount to a review of the order which is impermissible in criminal law, the court said.