New Delhi: Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has moved the Delhi high court challenging the stay of defamation proceedings against Zee News editor-in-chief Sudhir Chaudhary, according to a report in Bar and Bench.The stay order was passed by additional sessions Judge Rakesh Syal in a revision petition preferred by Sudhir Chaudhary.In July, Moitra had filed a criminal defamation case against Chaudhary at the Patiala house court in New Delhi after he alleged that her speech in parliament on the ‘early signs of fascism’ was plagiarised from an article written by Martin Longman on US President Donald Trump. He said Moitra’s views were not her own and were “copy-pasted” from this article.Chaudhary then approached the courts by filing an application under Section 340 CrPC to initiate criminal action against Moitra for her “false” criminal defamation case and for “playing fraud” with the court. This case is currently pending.Also read: Mahua Moitra Wins Round Two as ‘Plagiarism’ Charge Falls FlatThe metropolitan magistrate Preeti Parewa had posted the case for orders on the issue of summons.Raising objections before the sessions court, Chaudhary said that the metropolitan magistrate had proceeded with the defamation case without hearing his application under Section 340. Following this, the sessions court stayed the proceedings before the metropolitan magistrate.According to the report in Bar and Bench, Moitra, challenging the stay, argued that the order of the sessions court was incorrect as it had no power to stall pre-summoning proceedings under a revision jurisdiction.Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Moitra, also said that the order challenged before the sessions court was an order which had deferred further hearing on Chaudhary’s Section 340 application. Moitra’s lawyers further argued that the high court had the power to deal with instances of erroneous jurisdiction under the writ of certiorari.Chaudhary’s advocate Mudit Jain argued that the writ petition was not applicable and that the Section 340 application ought to be decided first.Also read: It is Time to Get Rid of the Law of Criminal DefamationChaudhary’s lawyer also claimed that Chaudhary had moved an application seeking perjury action against the MP for allegedly concealing relevant facts in her defamation complaint and consequently, the Sessions court had stayed the proceedings.The court then directed Chaudhary to file his response to the petition before October 14.The matter is listed for further hearing before the Additional Sessions Court on October 18.
