Salman Khan files Rs 100 crore defamation against TV channel


Salman Khan has filed a defamation worth st a TV channel in Bombay High Court.

This is in relation to a sting operation carried out by the said channel against the Bajrangi Bhaijan actor in chankara poaching case.


The actor was accused of poaching a chinkara in Jodhpur and another at Ghoda farms during the shooting of his film, ‘Hum Saath Saath Hain’, in September 1998.

Times of India reported that the actor filed a defamation suit against a TV news channel by slapping damages worth Rs. 100 crore. The paper added that Salman had filed the defamation before a division bench of the HC in August this year, wherein Khan claimed a sting operation conducted by the channel in the 1998 chinkara poaching case was malicious and defamatory. And now Salman wants the channel to refrain from releasing the sting operation.

According to reports, claims made by the channel in the sting operation indicated that “witnesses claimed they saw Khan shoot the endangered chinkaras in Jodhpur”. However, later the “witnesses turned hostile and claimed the video was doctored”.

A report by Hindustan Times said that in a previous hearing on August 24 this year, the channel told a single bench of the HC that it had already taken down the video and script of the sting operation and all other related material from its website.

Justice SJ Kathawalla, who is presiding over the matter, will hear the matter on 18 November.

The Rajasthan High Court in its verdict had overturned the lower court’s verdict, acquitting Salman. The Rajasthan High Court said that there was no evidence to prove that the animals who were found dead were shot by Mr Khan’s licensed gun.

Salman was jailed in 2007 for nearly a week for shooting an endangered Chinkara (gazelle).

While arguing the case in the court, Salman’s lawyer had contended that the actor had been falsely framed in these cases, merely on the statements of witness, Harish Dulani.

The lawyer argued that Dulani was never available to them for cross-examination and hence his statements could not be relied upon in the conviction of Khan.