The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has stayed additional proceedings in opposition to RSS functionary Santanu Sinha in a felony defamation case filed by BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya, holding that the complainant remained sure by an endeavor beforehand recorded earlier than the Courtroom.
The one-judge Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani handed the order on an utility filed by the petitioner below Part 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, searching for enforcement of an endeavor recorded within the Excessive Courtroom’s earlier order dated March 3, 2025.
The petitioner sought a restraint on Malviya from advancing the felony grievance pending earlier than the trial courtroom, contending that the complainant had undertaken to defer proceedings earlier than the decrease courtroom pending adjudication earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
The dispute arose from social media posts allegedly revealed by the petitioner on Fb in June and August 2024 in regards to the complainant. Throughout earlier proceedings, the petitioner undertook to take away the posts to deliver the controversy to an amicable decision. The Excessive Courtroom recorded compliance with the endeavor and famous that the complainant had verified the removing of all impugned content material.
Consequently, the complainant had assured the Excessive Courtroom that he would search an adjournment earlier than the trial courtroom and request that hearings within the felony defamation grievance be scheduled after the Excessive Courtroom proceedings. The petitioner was additionally exempted from private look earlier than the trial courtroom till additional orders.
The petitioner later re-approached the Excessive Courtroom, asserting that the complainant continued to press the felony grievance regardless of the endeavor, main the trial courtroom to look at that there was no specific keep working in opposition to the proceedings. It was contended that this conduct undermined the reassurance recorded by the Excessive Courtroom.
Opposing the appliance, counsel for the complainant relied on an alleged subsequent Fb put up claimed to be derogatory. The petitioner disputed the allegation and objected to the accuracy of the English translation positioned on report. The Excessive Courtroom accordingly directed the petitioner to file what he asserted to be the proper translation and granted time for replies and rejoinders.
The Courtroom noticed that the complainant remained sure by the endeavor recorded in paragraphs 3.1 and 4 of the March 3, 2025 order and directed that no additional progress be made within the felony defamation proceedings within the interim. It additional clarified that, because the prosecution arose out of a personal defamation grievance below Part 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the State had no participatory position within the dispute.
The matter has been listed for additional listening to on March 19, 2026, with the Excessive Courtroom retaining oversight to make sure compliance with the undertakings recorded earlier than it.
