HC asks locus standi of activist in filing case against Salman

The Bombay High Court today asked a social activist to explain his locus standi in filing a private complaint in a Magistrate's court seeking contempt action against Bollywood actor Salman Khan for allegedly posting court orders in cases against him on his website.
Salman's lawyer Niranjan Mundargi prayed for quashing the complaint as well as proceedings pending in the Magistrate's court in suburban Bandra. He argued that posting court orders on website does not amount to contempt.
However, Justice Sadhana Jadhav told Salman's lawyer that since proceedings were not pending in the Magistrate's court there was no question of quashing them. The Judge asked him to withdraw the petition or press for relief before the Bandra Magistrate.

Accordingly, the court asked the lawyers of both the sides to make a statement on February 17 whether they wanted to continue with the case. The Judge would pass appropriate orders on that day after they make a statement in this regard.
To a query by the Judge, Salman's lawyer said that so far 'process' had not been issued by the Court against Salman on the complaint filed by activist Hemant Patil alleging contempt. The Magistrate had summoned the actor only once and he had appeared before the Court already.
Process is issued by the Court only after it finds substance in the complaint and takes cognisance of the case, according to legal experts.

In that case, the Judge said, no proceedings were pending in the lower court and hence there was no question of quashing them.

The Judge also asked Patil's lawyer Wajed Khan what was his client's locus standi in the matter. He was asked to make a statement on the issue on February 17.
Salman had earlier pleaded that the 2002 hit-and-run case involving him had been committed to a sessions court for trial and hence the Bandra Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue notice to him on the contempt petition filed by Patil.
On August 26 last year, another Judge of the High Court had stayed the notice issued to the actor on Patil's complaint, observing this (notice) was highly questionable particularly when the case had been committed to sessions court.