Court Closes Proceedings After Mutual Agreement and Regret Expression Over Allegedly Defamatory Statement
In a significant legal development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, has dismissed the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi, following a mutual agreement between the parties involved. The case centered around a statement made by Gandhi in 2018 during an assembly election campaign, which allegedly defamed Kartikey Singh Chauhan by mistakenly referring to him in connection with the Panama Papers controversy.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal, who presided over the Misc. Criminal Case No. 13941 of 2026. The petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenged the order dated December 13, 2024, from the trial court that had taken cognizance of the offense under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and summoned Gandhi.
Rahul Gandhi, represented by senior advocates Vivek Krishna Tankha and Ajay Gupta, submitted an application (I.A. No. 14821/2026) during the pendency of the petition, expressing regret for the erroneous statement. Gandhi clarified that the reference was intended for the son of the former Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and not Chauhan or his father, the then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh. Gandhi's public clarification and expression of regret were promptly issued the following day, October 30, 2018.
The respondent, Kartikey Singh Chauhan, represented by advocate Sankalp Kochar, accepted Gandhi's regret and agreed not to pursue the matter further. In light of this mutual agreement and the expressed regret, both parties requested the closure of proceedings before the High Court and the trial court.
The court acknowledged the statements and agreement between the parties, leading to the closure of proceedings in both the High Court and the trial court. Justice Agrawal emphasized the importance of the voluntary cessation of proceedings and ordered the closure of the complaint case pending before the JMFC, Special Judge (MP & MLA) in Bhopal.
This resolution underscores the court's recognition of the importance of mutual understanding and resolution in legal disputes, especially in cases involving public figures and potentially defamatory statements. The order has been sent to the trial court for necessary compliance, marking the end of the legal proceedings in this matter.
Bottom Line:
Petition challenging cognizance of defamation case - Applicant expressed regret for allegedly defamatory statement, clarified the error, and respondent accepted the regret - Proceedings before both High Court and Trial Court closed in light of mutual agreement.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 500
Rahul Gandhi v. Kartikey Singh Chauhan, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc id # 2929641
