Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Quashing Defamation Petition
Quashing Defamation Petition
com)
VERSUS
The petitioner
parties over the last 20 years. She has not faced any
investigative journalist.
power.
The respondent
Brief Facts
(pages _____).
targeted at the BJP and not respondent per se. The tweet
and to alert the public about its code of conduct. The tweet
for defamation under section 499, 500 and 501 of the IPC
The tweet
tweet for which the respondent has filed the complaint, the
sentence.
case. The tweet was targeted at the BJP and not the
of the ruling party BJP and to alert the public about its
of the crime.
Gurunath.
28. The fact of the matter is that the respondent has been
defamation.
writings. She has been vocally critical of the BJP and its
the night with her. Dr. Gurunath not only lodged an FIR
articles.
down:
Law of defamation
below:
mandate.
below:
GROUNDS
the respondent while tweeting that “Now the man who beat up
tweet was targeted at the BJP and not respondent per se. The
tweet was also based on nothing but truth and in good faith
to alert the public about its code of conduct. The tweet was
20 years. However, till date she has not faced any defamation
The fact that the respondent is the person who attacked Mr.
respondent has also not taken any action against Dr. Jwala
questionable.
same using his twitter handle and was also arrested and
bail and the trial is still going on. For the respondent to
expect that no one would comment on his case till the trial is
have to wait for another 7-10 years before they can accuse
Gurunath.
the FIR did not mention the sections in IPC relating to sexual
public view. The learned single judge also observed that the
of the IT Act and therefore, the said offence was not attracted.
him to spend the night with her. Dr. Gurunath not only
mandate.
PRAYER
(c) This Hon'ble Court may also pass such and further
PETITIONER:
THROUGH:
PRANAV SACHDEVA
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER