Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed an application filed by actor Kangana Ranaut to quash criminal defamation proceedings initiated by an Andheri metropolitan magistrate against her in February on a complaint filed by lyricist-screenwriter Javed Akhtar. Ranaut had contended that the magistrate had not followed the procedure under the law and had displayed “non-application of mind” in summoning her.

The HC found “no ground” to interfere or quash the proceedings on the basis of alleged procedural irregularity adopted by the magistrate while taking cognizance of the complaint against Ranaut. “The order issuing process, dated February 1, reflects application of mind and hence, warrants no interference,” said Justice Revati Mohite-Dere, who dismissed the actor’s application finding it “devoid of merit”.

Ranaut’s counsel Rizwan Siddiquee argued that the magistrate had not followed the proper procedure in directing the police to do a probe which resulted in a “one-sided inquiry” as her witnesses were not examined. She was left “remedy-less” and thus had to approach the HC to protect her fundamental rights was also her plea. Siddiquee later said he would move the Supreme Court.

An Andheri metropolitan magistrate is scheduled to hear the case on September 14.

Akhtar’s lawyer Jay Bharadwaj said Ranaut did not respond to the police request for her statement adding that the magistrate “thoroughly applied his mind”, and relied on the complaint’s verification statement as well as Ranaut’s television interview.

The HC noted and Bharadwaj too had argued that “there is no challenge” to the contents of the November 2020 complaint and Ranaut’s grievance only pertains to the “illegal procedure”. The order said, “The magistrate examined the complainant (Akhtar)” on oath and then sent the complaint for probe to police and hence complied with the legal requirements.”

The HC said the three options available to the magistrate under Section 202 of the CrPC are to either inquire into the case himself, direct police to make investigation, or direct a person he thinks fit to probe. The HC said the magistrate exercised the second option. Juhu police after recording statements of several witnesses submitted its report “observing that a cognizable offence is disclosed against applicant (Ranaut)”.