Shiv Sena leader and Rajyasabha MP Sanjay Raut has moved a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him on December 12, 2021, for allegedly using abuses and expletives while giving an interview to a Marathi News channel.
The matter was listed for hearing on 15 February 2022 before the bench of Justice Mukta Gupta. The High Court issued notice and listed the matter for 6 April 2022 for hearing.
The petitioner was represented by Shreeyash U. Lalit and the State was represented by Nandita Rao.
The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Deepti Bharadwaj, the National General Secretary of BJP Mahila Morcha.
The petition stated that on September 9, 2021, Raut participated in a TV9 Marathi live interview involving discussions on the performance of the current government.
In this interview, the Petitioner was interviewed with regard to a photograph being circulated on Twitter where he had offered a chair to the President of NCP, Sharad Pawar.
During the interview, the reporters mentioned that some of the workers from BJP had alleged that Sanjay Raut, by offering a chair to Sharad Pawar, had shown that his allegiance was slowly shifting from Late Balasaheb Thackeray to Sharad Pawar.
Responding to these allegations, Raut stated in the interview that it is Maharashtra's culture to respect elders and that he would have offered a chair even if Late Vajpayee or even LK Advani had been there when the interviewer asked a few more questions on this subject, Raut responded with certain expletives and abuses.
In this context, a complaint was filed by Bharadwaj alleging that Sanjay Raut had outraged the modesty of the female political workers.
Consequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 500 and 509 of the IPC before PS Mandawli Fazal Pur, Delhi.
In response, Sanjay Raut filed a petition under Section 482, CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR before the Delhi High Court.
In this petition, Sanjay Raut pleaded that the uncontroverted facts in the FIR did not establish any offence under Sections 500 and 509 of the IPC. It was further averred that upon evaluating these utterances objectively, no reasonable person would ever conclude that these utterances had a pernicious effect on the reputation of any person, let alone any generic class of political workers, or had the effect or tendency to outrage the modesty of any particular female political worker or class of workers.
It was further argued that the words used were not defamatory or targeted towards insulting any woman. Moreover, it was also stated that the uncontroverted facts in the FIR stood covered under Section 95 of the IPC, especially since the matter was so trivial that no ordinary person would complain of such harm.
He further argued that the allegations made against him were frivolous and made with an ulterior motive.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor