New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed the trial court proceedings against BJP MP Manoj Tiwari in a defamation case filed by former deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.
Sisodia had filed the case after Tiwari and five others claimed that he was implicated in a corruption fraud involving approximately Rs 2,000 crore relating to the construction of new classrooms in Delhi’s government schools.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma ordered no further steps to be taken against the BJP MP in this matter and issued a notice on Tiwari’s plea.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further hearing on November 20.
Justice Sharma said: “Issue notice. In the meanwhile, the proceedings qua the petitioner shall remain stayed.”
Sisodia had filed a defamation case against Tiwari, Manjinder Singh Sirsa, Hans Raj Hans, Vijender Gupta, Harish Khurana and Parvesh Verma.
On January 20, the high court stayed trial court proceedings against BJP spokesperson and media relations in-charge Khurana in the same matter.
Khurana moved to court seeking a stay.
The high court, on January 5, stayed the proceedings before a trial court against BJP leaders Sirsa and Hans.
During the course of hearing on Wednesday, Tiwari’s counsel submitted that the Supreme Court, while deciding the SLP moved by Tiwari in connection with defamation case, only dealt with the question of grant of sanction under Criminal Procedure Code and that the subsequent petition was maintainable in view of certain subsequent facts.
The court was further informed that out of the six accused persons, proceedings qua Gupta were quashed by the Supreme Court and were stayed against four others, except Tiwari.
Continuing with the proceedings against Tiwari when they have already been stayed against other accused, will not help.
Sisodia’s counsel, however, opposed the plea and submitted that the petition was a “abuse of process of court”.
He submitted that there were no subsequent facts arising in the case and that Supreme Court had dismissed Tiwari’s SLP and thus, staying proceeding against him would be prejudicial to Sisodia who has not seen any progress since last five years in the matter.
(IANS)
