Supreme Court to Take Up Kangana’s Plea Against Defamation Case on Sept 12

The actor-religious politician, 2020-21 Farmer, who is currently repealed against the farm laws against a female protesters during the protests of his own interpretation of his own interpretation of the slander case.

The complaint was opened in 2021 by Mahinder Kaur (73) from the village of Bahadurgarh Jandian in Punjap Bathinda region.

The complaint in the Bathinda court said that the actor made “false imputations and explanations” against him in a retweet, saying that Bilkis Bano, a part of the Shaheen Bagh protest.

“A celebrity against the petition, the wrong and slander imputations in Retweet, the plaintiff’s reputation reduced the reputation of the plaintiff, and in the eyes of others in the eyes of his own estimation, his rights can not be called the property seedlings,” he said.

“… Reading the order that is objected as a whole, the magistrate’s judiciary (Court of Bathinda) applied the mind in accordance with the material under record, and only the prima disaster against the petition of the 499 IPC section of the 499 IPC section, after the registration of the process,” Order Reading. “

The petition was opened in front of the Supreme Court in accordance with the 482th part of the CRPC, as the complaint opened in the 499/500 section of the IPC, which has currently abolished, and also disrupted the complaint made by the court dated 22 February 2022.

Kaur also said that Dharnas (seating) and shows have been a part of the demonstrations since the beginning of farmers.

Despite their old age, they went to Delhi to join the agitation with other protesters.

Kaur, Tweet ‘Time’ magazine compared with Shaheen Bagh’dan woman (Dadi) with the woman (Dadi) absolutely no concern, he said.

In this way, the petition, Ranaut’s pride against the complainant, damaging his honor and slander him on social media “claimed that he made false imputation and slander explanations.

Kaur opened the complaint in January 2021 in Bathinda.

Kangana’s lawyer argued that the decision of the Court of Bathinda in the Supreme Court was not sustainable that it violated the criminal code code.

After the preliminary evidence was recorded by the complainant, he called for a report from Twitter Communications India Private Limited (TCCIPL) and could not call the petition because the report was never received.

Ranaut’s intention to harm the complainant’s reputation was also claimed.

Justice Dahiya, according to the order, “… TCIPL’s petition claimed by the owner of Retweet on whether the report is not taken back, section 202 CRPC within the scope of the judiciary authority (the court in Batinda) is under the control of the owner of Twitter.com can not be a basis.