Today, On 18th March, In the ongoing Saxena vs. Kejriwal case, the police have not yet filed the compliance report and have now sought certified copies of the complaint and FIR plea. Authorities require these documents to proceed with the investigation and legal process. The delay has raised concerns over the progress of the case. Further action will depend on the court’s decision regarding the pending requests.
New Delhi: The Delhi Police failed to submit a compliance report as directed by the Rouse Avenue court regarding the registration of an FIR. On March 11, the court instructed the Delhi Police to file an FIR based on a complaint against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former MLA Gulab Singh, and MCD councillor Nitika Sharma.
On the same day, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Dwarka South Police Station submitted a request for a copy of the complaint and the application filed by the complainant to register the FIR.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal approved the request and ordered the SHO to obtain a certified copy.
The court has scheduled a compliance hearing for March 28.
The March 11 directive from the court pertains to allegations of defacement of public property in the Dwarka area in 2019, based on a complaint by Shiv Kumar Saxena.
The court expressed its belief that the application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) should be granted.
The court stated,
“Accordingly, the concerned SHO is directed to register the FIR immediately under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, and any other offenses that may be applicable,”
In her order on March 11, ACJM Mittal noted the details presented by the complainant, who alleged that the accused were misusing public funds by erecting large hoardings in various locations, including Sector-11 DDA Park, Dwarka Road, the DDA MP green area in Sector-11, and at key crossings and roads in sectors 6, 10, and 11.
The complainant pointed out that one of the hoardings claimed that the Delhi Government would soon begin registrations for darshan at Kartarpur Sahib, featuring the photographs and names of then Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and then MLA Gulab Singh.
Another hoarding extended greetings for Gurunanak Dev Jayanti and Kartik Purnima to local residents and included the names and images of Nitika Sharma, Nigam Parshad, PM Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Manoj Tiwari, JP Nadda, Parvesh Verma, Ramesh Bidhuri, and others.
Despite a complaint being lodged with the police, no action was taken. A status report filed in 2022 by the SHO of Dwarka South Police Station indicated that, although the complaint was made in 2019, no such hoardings were found displayed at the alleged locations at the time of the report, suggesting that no cognizable offense was established.
Also Read: BJP-Led Delhi Government Withdrawing Court Cases Against Lieutenant Governor
In light of the status report, the Metropolitan Magistrate of the Dwarka court dismissed the complaint on September 15, 2022. The complainant subsequently filed a revision petition with the Rouse Avenue court, which was accepted, leading to the case being remanded for a fresh hearing.
The session court instructed that the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. be reconsidered with a detailed order addressing whether a cognizable offense could be established based on the complainant’s allegations.
The court also directed the Trial Court to decide on the directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or to handle the complaint as a standard complaint case. The Legal Aid Counsel (LAC) for the complainant argued that the status report merely stated that no hoardings were found at the time of the report and did not address their existence at the time the complainant alleged they were displayed.
The LAC emphasized that an investigation was necessary, as it was beyond the complainant’s capacity to ascertain who placed the hoardings.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State opposed the application, arguing that the photographs included with the complaint did not indicate the printing press details on the hoardings, making it impossible to determine their origin or who was responsible for them.
Also Read: 7 BJP MLAs Suspended | Delhi HC Sets Aside Suspension from Delhi Assembly
The APP further contended that allowing this application would not serve any purpose, noting that the complainant had previously named around 8-10 individuals as accused, including the Prime Minister, in earlier complaints to the police and DCP.
Many of these names were omitted in the current application, which raised questions about the compliance with Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. The APP requested that there be no need to order the registration of an FIR in this case based on these arguments.
The court dismissed the APP’s argument concerning the omission of specific names from the current complaint, stating that this would not affect the outcome of the application.
The court remarked,
“The inclusion or exclusion of certain individuals by the complainant cannot dictate the direction of the investigation. The investigating agency possesses the authority to name any person as an accused, even if they are not listed in the present application or complaint, provided that their involvement in the offense is substantiated by the investigation.”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
