Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Chatinder Singh, after reviewing submissions by the complainant’s counsel and the Action Taken Report (ATR) filed by Delhi Police, stated that an FIR was unnecessary as the accused’s identity and all relevant evidence were already known to the complainant.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi Court refused to direct the registration of an FIR against Congress Chief Mallikarjun Kharge over allegations of hate speech against BJP and RSS during an election rally in Karnataka in April 2023. However, the court has taken cognizance of the complaint filed by Advocate Ravinder Gupta, a member of the RSS.
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Chatinder Singh, after reviewing submissions by the complainant’s counsel and the Action Taken Report (ATR) filed by Delhi Police, stated that an FIR was unnecessary as the accused’s identity and all relevant evidence were already known to the complainant.
“There is no need for an investigation by the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in this case. Application is hereby dismissed,” the court ruled on December 9.
Despite rejecting the plea for an FIR, the court allowed the complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence (PSE) and noted that Section 202 Cr.P.C could be invoked if a need for investigation arises later. The matter is listed for PSE on March 27, 2025.
The complaint, filed through Advocate Gagan Gandhi, alleges that Kharge made defamatory remarks against BJP and RSS during a rally in Naregal, Karnataka, on April 27, 2023. It also states that Kharge later clarified that his remarks were directed at BJP and RSS, not at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. As an RSS member, the complainant claims to feel defamed by Kharge’s statements.
“The evidence is well within the reach of the complainant and no assistance of police is required to gather the same. The facts of the case are not such that would warrant a detailed and complex investigation to be carried out by the state agency,” the court said, dismissing the complaint.
The court, however, took its cognisance, saying, the complainant was at liberty to lead pre-summoning evidence.
“In case any requirement of investigation arises at a later stage qua some disputed facts the provision of section 202 CrPC (postponement of issue of process against accused) could be resorted to,” it said.
However, the court took cognizance of the matter, granting the complainant the liberty to present pre-summoning evidence. It noted that if an investigation becomes necessary at a later stage due to disputed facts, provisions under Section 202 of the CrPC (postponement of process issuance against the accused) could be invoked.
The court observed that the complainant already possesses all the necessary information regarding the accused and witnesses, and no recovery or collection of evidence requiring police intervention is needed. It emphasized that the discretionary power to order a police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C should be based on whether such an investigation is required, not merely whether a cognizable offence is committed.
The Action Taken Report filed by Police Station Subzi Mandi indicated that the alleged offence occurred in Karnataka, outside its jurisdiction. The court concluded that the facts of the case did not warrant a complex investigation by the police or custodial interrogation of the accused. Consequently, it found no grounds to invoke Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registering an FIR.
The matter has been scheduled for pre-summoning evidence on March 27.
