BENGALURU: A sessions court in the city on Wednesday stayed further proceedings pursuant to the summons issued to Home Minister Priyank M Kharge and Mohammed Haris Nalapad, former president of the Karnataka Pradesh Youth Congress Committee, by the Magistrate on a private complaint of defamation filed by a member of the RSS for allegedly defaming the RSS and its members through social media posts.
Judge Shivaprasad KB, the City Civil and Sessions Court for trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs, passed the interim order staying further proceedings on the order passed by the XLII ACJM (for criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs) in the city, taking cognisance of the offences of defamation, issuing summons and proceeding for evidence of the complainant, till October 30, the next date of hearing.
On June 27, the magistrate passed the impugned order rejecting the contention of Kharge that no member of RSS has locus standi to file a defamation complaint as the RSS is not a registered organisation which has not maintained any registered membership. It was contended by the accused-petitioners before the Sessions Court that the complainant, Tejas A, a member of RSS, gave different versions as to his connection with RSS and he has failed to produce the material to show that he is a member of RSS. The photographs produced by him are not consistent with the certificate furnished by the complainant, and those do not prove his affiliation with RSS.
The counsels for the petitioners pointed out that the complainant joined the causes of action in one complaint, which is impermissible under law.
Arguing that the complainant has no locus standi to file the private complaint for the offence of defamation before the magistrate, the petitioners’ counsel have stated that the magistrate’s order taking cognisance of offences punishable under Section 356 of the BNSS is not sustainable in law, as it should not take cognisance except on a complaint filed by the aggrieved person.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the magistrate, without deciding the issue as to the competency of the complainant, illegally took cognisance and proceeded to hold that such matter has to be decided at the trial.
The impugned order does not show the reasons for taking cognisance, and hence the impugned order is not sustainable in law against them, the counsels for the petitioners argued.