E-Paper
Delhi court rejects chargesheet against AAP leaders, criticizes police delay
The police said the accused burned effigies of PM Modi and the enforcement directorate, violating the model code of conduct and Section 144 CrPC, which were in effect at the time
New Delhi: A Delhi court has refused to take cognisance of a chargesheet filed against four Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, who are accused of disobeying police orders and burning effigies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the enforcement directorate during a protest at Nithari Chowk in west Delhi last March.
Pulling up the Delhi Police for sitting on the investigation of the case for eight months despite having access to all the evidence and witnesses, additional chief judicial magistrate Paras Dalal of Rouse Avenue Court passed the order on Friday.
The court also questioned the Investigating Officer (IO) for not carrying out a preliminary inquiry before lodging an FIR.
The incident took place on March 24, when Rituraj Govind Jha, the then MLA of Kirari Assembly Constituency, and three AAP councillors protested at Kirari Chowk in West Delhi. The police said the accused burned effigies of PM Modi and the enforcement directorate, violating the model code of conduct (MCC) and Section 144 CrPC (Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger), which were in effect at the time.
The four leaders were detained by the police for defying orders and booked under Section 188 (Disobedience to lawful orders of a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Also read: AAP MLAs hit out at LG over poor law and order in Delhi
The police filed a chargesheet before Rouse Avenue Court, seeking cognisance of the offences against the leaders.
The court observed that the chargesheet failed to specify what actions by the accused constituted the offence they were charged with, and noted that no disobedience was caused by them that obstructed any public officer. The court also pointed to the significant delay in the investigation, questioning how a chargesheet could take 10 months to be filed in a case with four witnesses, all of whom were police officers.
“The present case involved a sitting member of legislative assembly at the time of the offence and two councillors of Delhi municipality, yet the pace at which the investigation was done is bemusing,” the judge said.
The court observed that the Investigating Officer (IO) should have gathered sufficient evidence and sought legal opinion to determine whether the elements of the offence were actually met, which contributed to the delay in filing the chargesheet.
Noting that there was no difference in the contents of the first complaint, the FIR, and the chargesheet, the court expressed concern over the blatant and casual forwarding of the chargesheet by the concerned station house officer (SHO) and assistant commissioner of police (ACP).
