A city court has dismissed a plea by the Delhi Police challenging an order of a magistrate, who had refused to take cognisance of a chargesheet filed against an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) member in an alleged rioting case.
The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the police, saying there was "no infirmity" in the order passed by the magistrate as the conclusions arrived at by the
court were logical.
"In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the metropolitan magistrate dated January 15, 2013 and the present revision petition filed by the revisionist (police) is dismissed," additional sessions Judge Daya Prakash said.
The police had filed the plea in the matter in which a chargesheet was filed against AAP member Shazia Ilmi alleging that on August 1, last year, about 300-400 protesters were staging a protest near India Gate and she was "instigating" them to proceed towards the Prime Minister's residence without having valid permission from the authorities.
The police, in its chargesheet, had alleged that Ilmi instigated the protesters to move towards the PM's residence and they were stopped by the police and were directed to return to Jantar Mantar but they had pushed aside the barricades and ropes and reached Rajpath crossing.
It had also alleged that the protesters started running towards the PM's house, causing obstruction to traffic movement and also creating a law and order problem.
The magistrate, however, had refused to take cognisance of the chargesheet filed for offences punishable under various provisions of the IPC, including sections 145 (joining or continuing in unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public function) and others.
The police, in its revision petition filed before the sessions court, had challenged the order saying the magistrate has "failed to appreciate that even fundamental right of holding protests peacefully is subject to certain regulations like maintenance of public order which is itself mentioned in our Constitution."
It had pleaded that the order passed by the magistrate be set aside. Ilmi's counsel had opposed the plea, saying that there was no order in the file which showed that prohibitory order under section 144 of the CrPC was invoked in the area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed.