Just over two months after All-India Congress Committee president Mallikarjun Kharge was summoned by a Sangrur court in a criminal defamation complaint, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday stayed further proceedings before the trial court. Taking up the petition, Justice Aman Chaudhary also issued notice of motion on his petition challenging the summoning order.The Bench also fixed November 26 as next date of hearing in the matter. Appearing before Justice Chaudhary’s Bench on the petitioner’s behalf, senior advocate Dr Anmol Rattan Sidhu contended that the summoning order had been passed “without affording any opportunity of hearing at pre-summoning stage”.Sidhu added that the summoning order was, as such, “non-compliant of Section 223(1) of BNSS rendering the impugned order void ab-initio.”The provision requires a Magistrate to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath when taking cognisance of an offense on a complaint. It mandates, through its first proviso, that no cognisance can be taken without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. In support of the submission, Sidhu placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment.Sidhu further argued that “the report called under Section 225 of BNSS, erstwhile Section 202 of the CrPC, was also not taken into account while passing the impugned order.” In an attempt to buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on another Supreme Court decision. Before parting with the order, Justice Chaudhary asserted: “Till the next date of hearing, proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed”.In his petition, Kharge was seeking the quashing of the criminal complaint, and the summoning order dated June 8 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.Among other things, Justice Chaudhary’s Bench was told that the present petitioner was residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Sangrur court. “Thus, it was imperative for the trial court to carry out an inquiry or investigation into the alleged offence before summoning the present petitioner vide the impugned summoning order”.It also suffered from the vice of being a non-speaking “insofar as no reasons/grounds have been assigned for summoning the present petitioner”. The court mechanically summoned the petitioner “without application of mind in complete contravention of law and facts of the present matter,” it was added.Moreover, the offence of defamation was not made out on a plain perusal of the criminal complaint as “no specific attribution has been made to the present petitioner”. Neither intention, nor knowledge, to lower the complainant’s reputation could be inferred, “nor has it been averred in the impugned complaint”.Going into the background of the matter, it was contended that Hitesh Bhardwaj, describing himself as the National President of a Sangrur-based Hindu Trust Hindu Suraksha Parishad instituted the impugned criminal complaint before the trial court under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC alleging that a statement was circulated in Sangrur through “social media and the internet” and had lowered the reputation of the complainant and his organization