Delhi court refuses to stay proceedings in defamation complaint against Ashok Gehlot

Gehlot had then filed a revision petition. “The court declined to give any relief to Ashok Gehlot ji and said that he is at liberty to appear through videoconferencing but he will have to face trial,” said Shekhawat’s lawyer Aditya Vikram Singh.

The matter was heard Tuesday by Special Judge M K Nagpal, who said, “Though physical and personal appearance of the petitioner as an accused before the ACMM in the above said case on August 7, 2023 may not be practically convenient and necessary, but this court sees no reason or ground for staying the proceedings of above complaint case or as to why appearance cannot be filed by petitioner in the said court through Video Conferencing (VC) mode.”

Gehlot’s lawyers, including Dayan Krishnan, Mohit Mathur and G S Bapna said that since Gehlot is a serving CM “and has multifarious official duties to perform, it will not be in public interest to require his presence before this court, when he is residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court.”

They had also submitted that he “shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the above interim relief of stay of proceedings is not granted to him and further that his appearance before the ACMM will also cause irreparable injury and incalculable harm to his reputation and goodwill.”

The matter has now been listed for further hearing on Gehlot’s application against the proceedings on August 19.

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 crore.

While summoning Gehlot, the ACMM’s July 6 order had read, “From evidence placed on record, it prima facie appears that the accused has made specific defamatory statements…against the complainant. Further, it prima facie appears that the aforesaid defamatory statements of the accused have been sufficiently published in the newspaper/electronic media/social media, which may make right-thinking members of society shun the complainant.”

“It appears that the accused by his spoken words and by words which were intended to be read, have made defamatory imputations against the complainant, knowing and intending to harm the reputation of the complainant,” it had said.

In March, the court had ordered police to investigate Shekhawat’s defamation complaint. A Joint Commissioner-rank officer was asked to monitor the probe and answer whether Shekhawat was addressed as ‘an accused’; whether the complainant had said that the allegations against the accused “stand proven”; and “whether the complainant and his family members were arrayed as an accused in the investigation”.

While the first two questions were answered in the affirmative, the last question was answered in the negative, as per the court.