Delhi Court refuses to acquit Rajasthan CM Ashok Gehlot in defamation case by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat

A Delhi court on Tuesday refused to acquit Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot in a criminal defamation case filed by Union Jal Shakti Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat [Gajendra Singh Shekhawat Vs. Ashok Gehlot]..Gehlot had sought acquittal on the ground that Shekhawat had been absent before the court on August 7 and 21. However, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal noted that the matter was only listed for supply of documents and scrutiny on those dates.The judge added that the complainant (Shekhawat) was not expected to lead evidence on those dates. The Court also noted that the counsel representing Shekhawat was present.“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..Shekhawat filed the criminal defamation suit against Gehlot after the Chief Minister allegedly made a statement regarding the Union Minister's alleged involvement in the Sanjeevani scam.On March 24, 2023, the Court had ordered Delhi Police to investigate whether or not Gehlot actually said that Shekhawat was an accused in the scam. A report was then filed by the Delhi Police and Shekhawat's counsel argued that all the questions put by the court have been answered in the affirmative in the report. The Court then issued summons to Gehlot in the case..Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, representing Gehlot, argued that Section 256 (non- appearance or death of complainant) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) makes it clear that the accused ought to be acquitted in a complaint if the complainant remains absent without any justifiable cause.It was argued that Shekhawat had not sought any exemption from appearance for the two dates. Mathur said Section 256 of CrPC is not only applicable when the matter is at stage of evidence, but also “on every date and every stage."On the contrary, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing Shekhawat, said that Section 256 of CrPC is applicable only when the matter is pending for evidence, and it comes only after framing of notice. Pahwa also said that the proviso to Section 256, CrPC clearly provides that where the party is represented by a pleader or an advocate, no orders can be passed under the provision..ACMM Singh noted that the object of Section 256 is to protect the interest of the accused against any malafide prolongation of the trial at the hands of a complainant.The Court said the discretion provided under the law 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.The Court concluded this did not appear to be the case in the present matter and dismissed the application filed by Gehlot.“The conduct of the complainant is of immense significance and an absence on mere two dates and that too complainant was represented by his counsels and when the attendance of the complainant was not necessary for the proceedings of the day, cannot be called a justifiable ground to exercise the discretion u/s 256 Cr.PC, so as to acquit the accused,” the Court said..Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur represented the accused/ applicant.Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa represented the complainant. [Read Order]