The Rouse Avenue Court recently overturned a decision made by the Dwarka Court, which had previously declined to direct the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Arvind Kejriwal, the former Chief Minister of Delhi, and others.
The case pertains to allegations related to the violation of the Delhi Prevention and Defacement of Property (DPDP) Act, which arose from the display of banners and hoardings back in 2019.
The complainant, Shiv Kumar Saksena, had filed a revision petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Kejriwal, MLA Gulab Singh, and Municipal Councillor Nitika Sharma for their alleged involvement in these violations.
The Rouse Avenue Court’s ruling on January 21 marked a significant development in the case, as the court set aside the earlier order by the Dwarka Court and instructed that the matter be reheard from the beginning.
The special court, presided over by Judge Vishal Gogne, observed that the Dwarka Court had not adequately discussed the applicability of Section 3 of the DPDP Act. This was a crucial point, as it forms the basis for the case.
Therefore, the special court concluded that it would not be appropriate for a higher court to make determinations on whether the allegations constituted a cognizable offence.
Instead, it directed the matter to be returned to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) to address the issue in detail and issue a reasoned order.
The case revolves around accusations that Kejriwal, Singh, Sharma, and others had used public funds to install large hoardings at various public locations in Dwarka, including DDA parks and key intersections.
These hoardings, according to the complaint, featured images of the Prime Minister and other figures, which allegedly violated the DPDP Act.
The complainant, who had presented photographic evidence, video clips, and a DVD, claimed that despite numerous complaints made through WhatsApp, written communication, and phone calls to the police, no FIR was ever registered, and no action was taken.
In response, the police had filed an Action Taken Report (ATR) in June 2022, stating that no hoardings were found at the specified locations. The report further mentioned that if similar violations were observed in the future, appropriate legal action would be taken.
The Dwarka Court had initially dismissed the complainant’s request under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which pertains to the registration of an FIR. Instead, the court had directed the complainant to present pre-summoning evidence under Section 200 CrPC.
However, this decision was challenged by the complainant, and the special court has now ordered a fresh hearing on the matter.
Follow us
