Kangana-Akhtar case: Court says its oral directions with media present can’t be considered a threat
The court had recently rejected the actor’s plea seeking to transfer the proceedings between her and lyricist Javed Akhtar from the magistrate currently hearing the cases in Andheri to another court.
3 min read
Kangana Ranaut has approached the court, requesting it to record the statement of her sister Rangoli Chandel in the defamation complaint filed by veteran lyricist Javed Akhtar.In its detailed order rejecting the transfer applications filed by actor Kangana Ranaut on proceedings between her and lyricist Javed Akhtar, the sessions court has said that oral directions given by the court while media persons were present in the courtroom cannot be termed a threat.
Ranaut had sought transfer of a defamation complaint filed against her by Akhtar and a counter-complaint filed by her alleging criminal intimidation against him. Her petition sought the transfer of the pleas from the magistrate currently hearing the cases in Andheri to another court.
Among the grounds, Ranaut had submitted that on one hearing, the magistrate had said that he would issue a warrant against her on the next date if she failed to appear before it. It was submitted that this was reported by the media and it amounted to an open threat.
“In respect of the presence of media persons and threats to which the applicant has referred to some tweets, digital news on TV, newspapers. It is to be noted that both applicant (Ranaut) and respondent (Akhtar) are celebrities. Nowadays, we know whenever any proceeding against any celebrity is filed in the court of law or in any police station, several media persons collect the news for their media house,” additional principal judge S M Bhosale said in his order which was made available on Friday.
“It has been specifically denied by the Ld MM (metropolitan magistrate) that he has given any threat. But the report states that media persons were present. It is a general practice that court gives oral directions sometimes, it does not mean that it is a threat,” the order added.
While Ranaut had alleged bias as a ground for seeking the transfer, the court said that mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done does not suffice. “In the absence of any material demonstrating the apprehension that justice will not be done, without any bias, such application for transfer cannot be entertained,” the court said.
You May Like
