The Delhi Police on Tuesday failed to submit a compliance report following the Rouse Avenue Court's directive to register a First Information Report (FIR) against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former MLA Gulab Singh, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) councillor Nitika Sharma.
The court had, on 11 March, instructed the police to file an FIR in response to a complaint lodged by Shiv Kumar Saxena.
However, during Tuesday’s hearing, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Dwarka South Police Station filed an application requesting certified copies of the complaint and the application seeking the FIR.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal approved the application and directed the SHO to obtain the necessary certified copies. The matter has now been listed for compliance on 28 March.
The court's 11 March order had stated that the application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should be allowed. The ACJM had directed the concerned SHO to "register an FIR immediately under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, and any other offence that appears to have been committed based on the facts of the case."
The complaint alleged that the accused individuals misused public funds by erecting large hoardings at multiple locations across Dwarka, including Sector 11’s DDA Park, Sector 10’s main crossing, and various public spaces such as boundary walls, power poles, and green areas.
One of the hoardings reportedly promoted the Delhi government’s planned registration for Kartarpur Sahib darshan, displaying photographs of Kejriwal and former MLA Gulab Singh.
Another hoarding, which extended greetings for Guru Nanak Dev Jayanti and Kartik Purnima, featured photographs and names of multiple political figures, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and several BJP leaders.
The complainant claimed to have previously approached the police, but no action was taken.
A status report filed by the SHO of Dwarka South in 2022 stated that the complaint dated back to 2019 and that, at the time of the report's filing, no such hoardings were found at the alleged locations, thereby ruling out any cognisable offence.
In light of this status report, the Metropolitan Magistrate at Dwarka Court had dismissed the complaint on 15 September 2022. However, the complainant subsequently filed a revision petition before the Rouse Avenue Court, which allowed the petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Sessions Court had instructed the Trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC with a detailed order on whether a cognisable offence had been disclosed.
It further directed that the Trial Court should either order an FIR or proceed with the complaint as per legal provisions.
During the proceedings, the Legal Aid Counsel (LAC) for the complainant argued that the status report did not confirm whether the hoardings were present at the time of the alleged offence.
The LAC maintained that a thorough investigation was required, as the complainant was in no position to identify those responsible for erecting the hoardings.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State opposed the request, arguing that the attached photographs did not provide any details regarding the printing press responsible for producing the hoardings. As a result, he contended that determining who commissioned them would be difficult.
The APP also pointed out that the complainant initially named multiple individuals, including the Prime Minister, in the complaints filed with the police and before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP). However, some names were later omitted from the revised application.
Based on this, the APP argued that the application had not followed the due process under Section 154(3) of the CrPC, making the demand for an FIR unnecessary.
The court dismissed this argument, stating that the complainant’s decision to omit certain names did not affect the investigation's course. It emphasised that the investigating agency had the authority to name any individual as an accused if their involvement was established during the inquiry.
With the matter now listed for 28 March, the police must submit their compliance report regarding the court’s FIR directive.
Follow us
