Defamation case: Priya Sachdev gets time to reply on document plea

In an ongoing defamation case, the Patiala Court has granted Priya Sachdev Kapur time to file a reply to an application from Mandhira Kapur Smith seeking the production of certain documents. Priya's counsel has opposed the plea's maintainability.

Court Hearing on Document Production

Patiala Court on Monday granted time to Priya Sachdev Kapur to file a reply to an application moved by Mandhira Kapur Smith seeking the production of documents in an ongoing defamation case.

The matter is being heard in connection with a criminal defamation complaint filed by Priya Sachdev Kapur against Mandhira Kapur and Pooja Chaudhary. Mandhira Kapur has filed an application requesting that certain documents be produced before the court.

Additional Chief Judicial (ACJM) Siddhant Sihag granted time to the counsel for filing the reply, if any, he wishes to file. Mandhira Kapur appeared through video conferencing during the hearing.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, along with advocates Smriti Asmita and Jhanvi Narang, appeared for Priya Sachdev Kapur. Advocate Amit Prasad appeared for Mandhira Kapur.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh sought time to file a reply, stating that a copy of the application had been received only a day earlier.

Arguments on Application's Maintainability

On March 12, Sanjay Kapur's sister Mandhira Kapur Smith filed her reply to the defamation complaint filed by Priya Sachdev Kapur. She had also filed the application. Senior advocate Maninder Singh had said that Mandhira Kapur's application is not maintainable. Advocate Amit Prasad appearing for Mandhira Kapur.

On the last date, he had filed a reply alongwith with an application stating that the alleged defamatory words should not be seen in isolation.

The counsel for Priya Kapur had opposed the application seeking direction for the production of documents. He had argued that we are at the stage of notice, not at the stage of charge. Therefore, the application for production cannot be filed at this stage.

Senior advocate also submitted that there is no denial of the statment by the proposed accused Mandhira Kapur. It is not said that content is morphed, manipulated, etc. It was further submitted that there has been no denial of the statements in question by the proposed accused, nor has there been any claim that the content is morphed or manipulated.

On the other hand, Senior advocate had argued that the application is maintainable only after the court takes cognisance of the complainant. As there is no denial of the statement by the defendant Mandhira Kapur, senior advocate for complainant Priya Kapur argued. Defendant can ask for the document at the stage of charge. He had also submitted that it is not a civil case, they are defendant in a defamation case for allegedly tarnishing the image in the eyes of the public. Plea asking for production of documents is not applicable here. All the documents she (Mandhira Kapur) is seeking are related to property, trust, etc. These are not related to this complaint and are in the public domain. She is aware of everything, senior advocate for Priya Kapur argued

Background of the Defamation Complaint

On January 21, the Patiala house court issued a notice to the proposed Accused Mandhira Kapur and Pooja Chaudhary. Priya Sachdev Kapur's and her sister Charu Sachdev's statements were recorded by the Court in a defamation complaint filed by Priya Kapur against Mandhira Kapur and others.

Priya Sachdeva Kapur has moved a criminal defamation complaint against Sunjay Kapur's sister, Mandhira Kapur Smith, and another individual, alleging that a series of statements made against her across podcasts, social media platforms, media interviews and republished online content constitute a sustained and deliberate campaign to damage her reputation.

The complaint asserts that the impugned remarks contain false assertions, insinuations and personal attacks presented as established facts, despite the issues being sub judice, thereby causing serious reputational harm. According to the complaint, the material circulated in the public domain advances misleading narratives and allegations aimed at maligning and harassing Priya Kapur through public discourse instead of lawful remedies.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh had submitted that such conduct squarely attracts the offence of criminal defamation under the applicable law.

The filing of the defamation case follows recent developments in connected proceedings, in which the court sought a response from actor Karisma Kapoor on a plea moved by Priya Kapur seeking certified copies of divorce-related court records involving late industrialist Sunjay Kapur.

Against this backdrop, Mandhira Kapur Smith made public remarks to the media questioning Priya Kapur's conduct and motives. She stated that if her brother had intended to share certain information, he would have done so during the marriage, and further remarked that divorce proceedings are confidential, particularly where children are involved. Priya Kapur has alleged that these statements form part of the defamatory material complained of and has approached the court through Senior Advocate Maninder Singh seeking criminal action for the alleged damage to her reputation. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)