A Delhi court on Tuesday refused to quash the defamation case filed by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat against Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot saying that it finds “no merit” in the application moved by the latter's counsel. Citing absence of Shekhawat from two ‘hearings’ in August, Gehlot's lawyers had moved an application requesting quashing of the defamation case against him citing CrPC 256, which empowers a magistrate to acquit the accused if the complainant does not appear in a case. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal of Rouse Avenue Court said that the objective of CrPC 256 is to protect the interest of the accused against any malafide prolongation of trial at the hands of a vexatious complainant. He said that it aims to ensure the presence of a complainant where it is necessary to take the case forward. “It goes without saying that the discretion provided by Section 256 CrPC can be exercised only in situations where the court believes that the absence of the complainant is deliberate and is being caused to prolong the suffering of the accused by continued trial. In the matter at hand, it does not appear to be the case,” the court said. Second, the court said that on both the said dates - August 7 and August 21 - the matter was listed for supply of documents and scrutiny. “It clearly was not an opportunity for the complainant to lead evidence. On both the said dates the learned counsels for the complainant were present and therefore, it can be said that on the said dates the personal attendance of the complainant was not necessary to take the matter forward,” the court said, adding that there are no "justifiable grounds" to exercise the discretion under CrPC 256 and dismissed his plea. “This court finds no merit in the said arguments put forth by the counsel for the accused. Ergo (therefore), in the light of the aforesaid discussion, the application at hand stands dismissed,” the judge said. The matter is now listed for September 25. Shekhawat had filed a defamation case against Gehlot for allegedly making defamatory statements against him in connection with the Sanjeevani Credit Cooperative Society Ponzi scam. The scam concerns about 2.14 lakh investors of the cooperative society who were defrauded and the directors/office bearers ran away with crores of investments - approximately Rs 900 crores - of the investors. Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for Gehlot, had argued that the law under CrPC 256 is absolutely clear and warrants that in absence of the respondent on any date, without a justifiable cause, which is admitted by the court in the form of an order on exemption application of the complainant, the accused ought to be acquitted in a complaint case. He said that Shekhawat was not present on two dates and that section CrPC 256 is not only applicable when the matter is listed for 'hearing' i.e. at the stage of evidence but it is applicable on every date and at every stage. Appearing for Shekhawat, senior advocate Vikash Pahwa said that CrPC 256 is applicable only when the matter is pending for evidence of the complainant and not before that. He said that application of the section commences only after framing of notice and not before and since in the matter at hand no notice has yet been framed, no question of application of the said section arises.
