academy Icon academy Icon lawbiz Icon
Subscribe Premium

Kangana Ranaut Files Appeal In Sessions Court To Transfer Javed Akhtar Defamation Case

Sharmeen Hakim

17 Dec 2021 6:46 PM IST

    • Kangana Ranaut Files Appeal In Sessions Court To Transfer Javed Akhtar Defamation Case

    Close to two months after the in-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected actress Kangana Ranaut's application to transfer her defamation case from a particular Magistrate, the actor has approached the Sessions Court against that order.Kangana's plea filed through her Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee states that Akhtar, the complainant in the case has remained absent on six occasions, out of...

    Close to two months after the in-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected actress Kangana Ranaut's application to transfer her defamation case from a particular Magistrate, the actor has approached the Sessions Court against that order.

    Kangana's plea filed through her Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee states that Akhtar, the complainant in the case has remained absent on six occasions, out of which exemption was filed only on 2 occasions.

    And despite the fact that Kangana's lawyer represented her on every occasion, the Magistrate has threatened to issue arrest warrants on 2 different occasions.

    "That from the above wilful acts of omission and commission of the Magistrate, it can be reasonable inferred that the Magistrate is acting with a bias and prejudiced mind in the said matter".

    Ranaut's criminal revision application, filed today, is likely to come up for the first hearing on Tuesday, December 21, 2021.

    In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ST Dande, on October 23, 2021, had rejected Ranaut's application seeking to transfer the defamation case filed by noted lyricist Javed Akhtar from court of Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate RR Khan's court. The actor alleged "bias" on the part of Magistrate Khan to seek the transfer, which was rejected.
    In-charge CMM ST Dande had observed that merely because a judge proceeded with a case by following the law, doesn't mean he was biased against the accused.
    Ranaut had approached the CMM court alleging that the Magistrate in Andheri had intentionally hurt her reputation by announcing in open court that he would issue an arrest warrant if she didn't turn up in court to record her plea.
    In-charge CMM ST Dande had observed that Magistrate RR Khan had acted judiciously and in fact allowed all of Ranaut's exemption applications, repeatedly rejecting Akhtar's pleas for issuance of a non-bailable warrant when she failed to appear.
    "If on the basis of false allegation, the matter is transferred, it will affect the morale of the Presiding Officer," the court had then said.
    It further noted that the Magistrate's order issuing process and summoning Kangana to appear on March 1 was upheld by the revisional court as well as the Bombay High Court.
    Court proceedings cannot be transferred on vague and general allegations and a concrete case of reasonable apprehension of an unfair trial is necessary to transfer any case, the court had held.
    "Unless some positive, concrete case is made out showing that there is a reasonable apprehension of not getting fair trial or fair justice from the concerned court, the proceeding cannot be transferred from one court to another on mere vague and general allegations."
    The In-charge CMM had relied on the Supreme Court judgement in Usmangani Adambhai Vahora and Captain Amarinder Singh reported in 2016 (3) SCC 370's in which the court held that a transfer can be ordered only after the court's finding of a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done.
    "The Applicant (Kangana) has failed to make out a positive, concrete case to show that her apprehension is reasonable," the court then observed.
    The In-charge CMM had said that the Magistrate's response was sought, and he has categorically denied all allegations against him.

    Kangana claims that despite the Magistrate being fully aware that the case before him is a "summons triable matter" which is a bailable, non cognizable and compoundable offence, had issued a Bailable Warrant against her on the 1st of March, 2021.

    "That if the Magistrate wanted the Accused to personally remain present before him, he was duty bound to record his reasons in writing for doing so. In the absence of any such specific recording, the Applicant was duly represented by her Advocate on the 1st of March, 2021 despite which the Magistrate issued a against her in a summons triable case."

    Timeline:
    On November 3 Javed Akhtar filed the complaint before the Magistrate alleging that Ranaut defamed and damaged his "immaculate reputation" by dragging his name in actor Sushant Singh Rajput's death in her interview with Republic TV Anchor Arnab Goswami, on July 19, 2020.
    Akhtar's verification statement was completed the following month and subsequently directed the Juhu police to investigate under section 202 of the CrPC. After a police report, the Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against Ranaut.
    The court noted that despite receipt of summons, Ranaut remained absent without applying for exemption, the court issued a bailable warrant and cancelled it after she appeared.
    The court said that Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, had given Kangana a fair opportunity after she remained absent.


    Tags
    #Kangana RanautDefamation Case#Javed Akhtartransfer application
    Sharmeen Hakim

    Sharmeen Hakim

    LiveLaw Biz

    LiveLaw WhatsApp Channel
    Next Story
    X
    x
    IP subscription is detected for  
    Please register yourself for unlimited free access.
    Redirecting to register page...