New Delhi: Former Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit on Saturday favoured a settlement in a criminal defamation case filed by her against BJP leader Vijender Gupta in a city court, which referred the matter for mediation.
"Since complainant (Sheila Dikshit) is ready to settle the matter with the accused (Vijender Gupta), let the matter be referred to Mediation Cell, Saket Court complex for the purpose of settlement," Metropolitan Magistrate Anu Aggarwal said.
The court also directed both the parties to appear before the judge in-charge of Mediation Cell on October 17.
Dikshit had filed a complaint against Gupta alleging that the BJP leader had used "uncivilised language" against her in the run up to the MCD polls in 2012 while accusing her of helping and conniving with power companies.
During the hearing, Dikshit's counsel said they were negotiating the matter with the accused and exploring the possiblity for a settlement on the issue.
Gupta's counsel Neeraj, however, said no such proposal has been received yet and that for the past three dates of hearing, Dikshit has not appeared before the court.
The court then asked Gupta, now leader of opposition in Delhi Assembly, whether or not he wanted to settle the matter because every settlement has some terms and conditions.
"If she (Dikshit) withdraws the case, then we are ready for settlement," Gupta's counsel said, adding that the entire exercise of settlement would be a futile exercise if the complainant fails to appear before the mediation cell.
The court directed the complainant's counsel to ensure her presence before mediation cell for the purpose of settlement, considering the nature of the case and the submissions made.
The court had earlier listed the matter for today to cross-examine Dikshit in the case.
It had on August 30 last year imposed a fine of Rs three lakh on Dikshit for failing to appear before it.
However, in January this year, the High Court had set aside the trial court order imposing a fine of Rs three lakh on her, saying it was "non-speaking" order and no reason was given for imposing such costs.
