The Karnataka High Court has declined to quash criminal defamation proceedings pending against former Union Minister and politician Maneka Sanjay Gandhi, rejecting her petition challenging the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of a private complaint and issue summons to her.
However, considering Gandhi’s advanced age and the fact that she resides in Delhi, the High Court has stayed the operation of the summons for two weeks to enable her to approach the Sessions Court for appropriate relief.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde passed the order while dealing with Gandhi’s criminal petition seeking to terminate the proceedings arising out of a complaint filed by S.K. Mittal, alleging offences of criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The trial court had initially dismissed the complaint on November 16, 2019. Challenging the decision, the complainant approached the Sessions Court through a criminal revision petition.
On June 30, 2025, the Sessions Court set aside the dismissal order and remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. Subsequently, upon reconsidering the complaint, the trial court took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued summons to Gandhi.
Aggrieved by the subsequent proceedings, Gandhi approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal case. Her counsel contended that the trial court had been influenced by the observations made by the Sessions Court while remanding the complaint for reconsideration.
It was further argued that approaching the same Sessions Court, which had earlier directed the trial court to reconsider the complaint, would not provide an efficacious remedy to Gandhi. On this basis, she sought the High Court’s intervention, contending that she had no effective alternative remedy under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The High Court, however, declined to entertain the plea for quashing the proceedings and indicated that Gandhi could challenge the trial court’s order before the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
The Court clarified that the Sessions Court would be required to independently examine the challenge on its merits and decide the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by its earlier order dated June 30, 2025.
It further observed that the revisional court must assess the trial court’s decision on the basis of the allegations in the complaint, the statements recorded and the material placed on record.
The High Court also directed that the period spent by Gandhi in pursuing the proceedings before it would be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition.
While declining to quash the criminal proceedings, the Court granted Gandhi interim protection by keeping the operation of the summons order in abeyance for two weeks, taking into account her advanced age and residence in Delhi. The protection is intended to give her an opportunity to approach the Sessions Court for appropriate relief.
The post Karnataka High Court refuses to quash criminal defamation case against Maneka Gandhi; stays summons for two weeks appeared first on India Legal.