Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday is intended for orders, the dismissal petition submitted by the actor Kangana Ranana on the process of defamation that began on the complaint submitted by the veteran of Jawhtar’s lyrics.
Justice Revati Mohite Dere who heard Rizwan Siddique’s advice for Ranaut and Jay Bharadwaj for Akhtar said he would say the last sequence on September 9.
Judge Andheri is scheduled to hear the case on September 14.
Siddique quoted 26 ratings from the Supreme Court and the High Court to argue that Metropolitan Judges at the Andheri Court did not apply their judicial minds, while asking for an investigation to do by the police into a personal complaint.
He argues that the police investigation is only needed if his case is a demand and judge will be bound to a customs to record specific reasons for asking for police investigations.
Siddique stressed that there was no recovery of evidence and the police thus only presented a one-sided investigation report, which was contrary to the part 162 CRPC and the judge relied on such reports.
He also emphasized the point that there was no thought application in his order to call Ranana.
He was “never checked” by the judge also never recorded his statement before the police as a witness, he added.
The advice of Akhtar Bharadwaj said the police had been asked by the police to give his statement but he did not respond “for the best known reasons”.
He also said the Magistrate command December 2020 for police investigations could not be canceled when he followed a maturing process, “really applied his mind” and relied on the verification statement of complaints and television interviews.
Bharadwah argues that in the ranana petition, “there was no challenge” to fill in November 2020 complaints and complaints only related to the procedure.
He said laws below Section 202 of the criminal procedure code allowed the judge to ask the problem himself or direct police investigations and judges do the latter.
Siddique submission also that SC has argued that the judicial wisdom cannot be used by arbitrary judges without the application of mind.
He said the judge “tied to the assignment to protect the proposed rights accused (ranaut)” and apply his trained justice mind to determine whether the case of defamation as a suspicion was made or not.
Ranaut’s request is that in the fact of the case of his case “Left Gambess” and thus limited to approaching HC for assistance, because his fundamental rights have been “well cultivated as a result of non-applying the judicial mind by judges.” Akhtar Advocate said his rights remained intact and was not violated by the command calling judges.