'Modi Thieves' Remark| High Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi Pending In Patna Court Till May 15

The Patna High Court today stayed proceedings pending before the Patna court in a criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi filed by the Rajya Sabha MP Sushil Kumar Modi in Patna Court over his 'Modi-Theives' remark, till May 15.The bench of Justice Sandeep Singh passed this order in a quashing petition moved by Gandhi in the year 2019. The matter was mentioned before the Court on April 18 and was posted for hearing today.#JustIn | Patna High Court stays proceedings in a #Defamation case against Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi), filed by RS MP Sushil Modi, pending in the Patna Court, till May 16.Gandhi was earlier directed by the #PatnaCourt to appear in person on April 25.#ModiSurname pic.twitter.com/HgWPB3HM0K— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 24, 2023Before the Court, Counsel for Gandhi, Ansul, argued that the case before the Patna court is hit by the doctrine of “double jeopardy” as Gandhi has already been convicted by Surat Court for the same remark which is at the centre of a defamation complaint filed by Sushil Modi before the Patna Court.The arguments were backed by a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of Gandhi before the HC on April 18 wherein it was pleaded that since the alleged remark “why all thieves share the Modi surname” made during a political campaign in Karol in April 2019, Gandhi has been tried and convicted by the Surat Court, therefore, now the case pending before the Patna Court would be hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy as enshrined under Section 300 of CrPC and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.For context, while Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, Section 300 (1) of CrPC bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same facts.In this regard, the affidavit before the HC, further states that in the instant case that the fact in issue, questions of law involved and the accused are one and the same and the same speech is the foundation both in the instant as well as in the case at Surat, and the only difference is that the complainants in the two cases are different.Significantly, the Bihar State Govt also opposed the continuation of the Defamation case against Gandhi before Patna Court. Advocate General for Bihar, PK Shahi argued that since Gandhi has been tried and convicted for the same offence by SuratCourt, trials at different places cannot continue.However, counsel appearing for Modi opposed quashing of the case against Gandhi and sought time to file a counter affidavit in the matter. Having heard the arguments of Gandhi's counsel, the Advocate General and the Counsel for Modi, and taking into account the averments in the supplementary affidavit, the Court stayed the proceedings in the defamation case till May 16.The order of the Patna High Court is significant because now Gandhi will no longer be required to appear personally before the Local court on April 25 to record his statements under section 313 CrPC in the case, pursuant to the direction of the local court.It may be noted that the Patna Court is presently dealing with a criminal complaint filed by Sushil Modi (through Senior Advocate and former Add. Solicitor General of India SD Sanjay) under Section 500 of the IPC (Defamation) over Gandi's alleged remark “why all thieves share the Modi surname”.It is Modi's case that Gandhi made the derogatory remark targetting people having the 'Modi' surname. Gandhi obtained bail in the case in the year 2019.In related news, last week, the Surat Sessions Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi's application seeking a stay on his conviction in the defamation case over his alleged remark. Dismissing Gandhi's application, the Court said that being a Member of Parliament and President of the second largest political party, Gandhi should have been more careful with his words, which would have had a large impact on the mind of the people.Surat Sessions Court Judge Robin Mogera also observed that any defamatory words coming from the mouth of Gandhi are sufficient enough to cause mental agony to the aggrieved person and in this case, comparing persons having the surname 'Modi' with thieves, would definitely have caused mental agony and harm the reputation of the complainant, BJP MLA Purnesh Modi.AppearancesCounsel for Rahul Gandhi: Ansul For the State: Advocate General P.K. ShahiFor Sushil Modi: Senior Advoctae S.D. Sanjay, assisted by Advocates Aalok Kumar, Priya Gupta and Sushmita Mishra.Case title - Rahul Gandhi vs. The State of Bihar through The Secretary Deptt. of Home Old Secretariat, Patna (Bihar) & Anr.Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Modi Thieves' Remark| High Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi Pending In Patna Court Till May 15

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags