Delhi High Court Upholds Order Refusing To Discharge TV Today In Criminal Defamation Case By BJP Leader Ramesh Bidhuri

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to discharge TV Today Network Limited, which owns Aaj Tak and India Today group, in a criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri in 2011.

The case stems from a news broadcasted on a gang rape and abduction case involving an individual described as brother-in-law of Bidhur's nephew.

At that time, Bidhuri was an elected MLA from Tughlakabad Constituency. The report criticized alleged police inaction in arresting the individual, while his co-accused had been taken into custody.

Complaints were filed by Bidhuri as well as his nephew. They alleged that the telecast was malicious, defamatory, misleading and intended to tarnish their reputation before the public.

In his ruling today, Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed TV Today's pleas challenging trial court order rejecting its applications for discharge.

The ground for rejection was that the MM Court does not have the power of discharge in a summons triable case.

Justice Dudeja observed that the applications filed by TV Today before the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking discharge were not maintainable.

“The impugned order dated 13.12.2018, dismissing the same, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity,” the Court said.

It added: “Petitioners have not challenged the summoning order dated 20.09.2014 in the present petition, and therefore in view of the same, the relief sought for discharge, cannot be granted.”

The judge rejected TV Today's contention that the Magistrate could have invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 251 of CrPC, calling it misconceived.

The Court concluded that the power to “drop proceedings” or “recall summons” is neither expressly conferred by the CrPC, nor can it be inferred by implication.

“A Judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it and that construction must eschew interpolation and evisceration. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there,” the Court said.

It added that Section 251 of CrPC does not empower the Magistrate to undertake a mini-trial or to evaluate defences on merits, adding that the stage for consideration of such issues would arise only when evidence is led.

“Consequently, once the Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons upon satisfaction that a prima facie case exists, he is left with no power to recall or annul his earlier order by entertaining a discharge application,” the Court said.

“The petitions are accordingly dismissed and disposed of along with pending application (s),if any,” it added.

Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LTD. & ORS v. RAMESH BIDHURI and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1442

Click here to read order