Actor Kangana Ranaut has approached City Civil and Sessions court, at Dindoshi, challenging the issuance of process by a Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate Court (hereinafter referred to as “MM Court”) against her, in the criminal defamation case by lyricist Javed Akhtar for her remarks against him in an interview with Arnab Goswami.
In the revision application led in the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kangana has said the procedure under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC, 1973) which requires even witnesses to be examined on oath before the process is issued under section 204 of the CrPC, 1973 was not followed.
During the previous hearing before the Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate Court has issued a bailable warrant against the actor after lyricist in the present case pointed out her response to a LiveLaw tweet to say that she was aware of the summons issued by the Hon’ble court but still chose not to remain present or le an exemption application.
The lyricist has accused the Actor of causing defamation the Lyricist further stated that “immaculate reputation by falsely attributing statements to him,” in her interview with Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami. His complaint under sections 499 and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC, 1860”).
Lyricist further stated in his complaint against the Actor, that a Lyricist is a self-made man. The complainant also mentioned that he is one of the most senior artists in the industry with his successful career spanning over more than 55 years, which in itself is a rare achievement. Apart from this, he was also nominated as a member of the Rajya Sabha during the period March 2010 to March 2016.
Thereafter receiving lyricist complaint, the Hon’ble Court recorded his statement on oath and directed the Juhu Police to conduct an inquiry under section 202 of the CrPC, 1973. On receipt of the report, the court noted that a prima facie case was made out and issued a process against Actor.
Hereafter, the Actor stated before the Hon’ble Sessions Court that mandatory compliance of Section 200 CrPC, 1973 was not followed in the matter and the four witnesses named by Mr. Javed Akhtar in his complaint have not been examined on oath.
