Rajdeep Sardesai vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Del) 2466

SUNIL GAUR
Rajdeep Sardesai – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent

In Crl. M.C. No. 1728 of 2012 and Crl. M.A. No. 6039 of 2012:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate.
For the Respondent/ State: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi and Mr. Sanat Tokas, Advocates.
In Crl. M.C. Nos. 2391, 2392 of 2012 and Crl. M.A. Nos. 12592, 12596 of 2012:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr. Nitin Sahuja, Mr. Kaustub Chouhan and Mr. Shiv Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi and Mr. Snat Tokas, Advocates.
In Crl. M.C. No. 1199 of 2013 and Crl. M.A. No. 3710 of 2013:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pramod Kumar, Dubey, Mr. Nitin Sahuja, Mr. Kaushtub Chouhan and Mr. Shiv Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi and Mr. Sanat Tokas, Advocate.
In Crl. M.C. Nos. 2396, 2398 of 2012 and Crl. M.A. Nos. 12605, 12608 of 2012:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Mr. Nitin Sahuja, Mr. Kaustub Chouhan and Mr. Shiv Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the above-captioned first four petitions, quashing of criminal complaint No. 7/1 titled Ajit Singh Tokas v. Raj deep Sardesai & Ors. and the summoning order of 7th March, 2010 is sought on merits whereas in the above-captioned last two petitions, quashing of criminal complaint No. 179/2011 titled Ravi Prakash v. IBN-7 and Ors. and the summoning order of 6th February, 2012 is also sought on merits.

2. In the above-referred two complaints i.e. criminal complaints No. 7/1 and 179/2011 preferred by Ajit Singh Tokas and Ravi Prakash Sharma respectively, petitioners are from concerned T.V. News Channel and Cobra Post, Unit of TV News Channel, who had conducted the sting operation, have been summoned for the offence of defamation.

3. With the consent of both the sides, the above-captioned six petitions were heard together as the challenge to the afore-noted two complaints is on identical grounds and by this common order, these petitions are being disposed of together.

4. While entertaining these petitions, petitioners’ personal appearance before trial court was dispensed with but the proceedings arising out of these two complaints were allowed to continue.

5. At the hearing,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(Del) 2466

SUNIL GAURRajdeep Sardesai – AppellantVersusState Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent

Cases Referred (7)

SUNIL GAUR
Rajdeep Sardesai – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent