Zee News editor Sudhir Chaudhary on Friday filed a defamation complaint against Congress MP Naveen Jindal for averments made against him in the criminal case. Chaudhary told the court that in the FIR lodged against him in the alleged extortion bid case, it was averred that as the CEO of Live India channel, he had carried out a fake sting operation.
Seeking a date for pre-summoning evidence, Chaudhary’s counsel Vijay Aggarwal said the averment in the FIR was false as no chargesheet was filed against Chaudhary in that matter.
He argued before metropolitan magistrate Jay Thareja that the court is duty bound to take cognisance of the matter and examine the complainant on oath.
After hearing arguments, the court fixed the matter for January 3 for its order on the issue of taking cognisance of the complaint.
“Fresh written complaint has been filed under section 200 of CrPC alleging commission of offence under section 499 (defamation) of IPC. Arguments on the point of taking cognisance have been heard and put up for orders on taking cognisance and if required, further proceeding on January 3, 2013,” the magistrate said. The counsel also said the second cause of action for filing the defamation case was the comments made in a press conference by Jindal.
A criminal defamation has been filed against Naveen Jindal, Anand Goel, Haigreev Khaitan, Vikrant Gujral, Ravi Uppal, Arun Kumar Purwar, Ratan Jindal, Sushil Kumar Maroo, Sudarshan Kumar Garg, Inderpal Singh Kalra, Hardip Singh Wirk, Shallu Jindal, Ram Vinay Shah, Arun Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Saraogi, Tej Kishen Sadhu, Rajeev Bhaduria.
He said in the press conference it was alleged that the Broadcast Editors’ Association (BEA) had called Chaudhary and he had made a submission before it after which he was removed.
He said his client had never gone to the BEA nor made any representations to the association.
In a separate development on Friday, the Delhi Police tried to force the two Zee editors, Sudhir Chaudhary and Samir Ahluwalia, for a voice sample test and asked them to read the same incriminating line from the transcript, which they refused on advice by their counsel.
The prevalent laws of the country on voice sample and hand writing is clear that the accused need not read the same lines, he/she can speak out anything that he/she desires.
The investigating officer insisted that the two editors give their denial in writing. On this, the two editors requested the investigating officer to give in writing that he wants them to read the same lines, which the Investigating Officer denied to do. The behaviour of the investigating officer will be put in front of the court by the lawyers of the two editors, as it is one more confirmation of the one-sided probe being attempted by Delhi police and premeditated harassment meted out to Zee Group officials.