No compliance report yet on FIR against Kejriwal in Dwarka banner case

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal of the court granted the request, setting March 28 as the next date for compliance.
The legal battle began when a complaint was filed by one Shiv Kumar Saxena, who alleged that large hoardings featuring Kejriwal, Gulab and others had been unlawfully placed in Dwarka.
The legal battle began when a complaint was filed by one Shiv Kumar Saxena, who alleged that large hoardings featuring Kejriwal, Gulab and others had been unlawfully placed in Dwarka.File Photo
Updated on
2 min read

NEW DELHI: The Delhi Police have yet to file a compliance report regarding the court-directed registration of an FIR against former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, former MLA Gulab Singh and MCD councillor Nitika Sharma in connection with the alleged defacement of public property in Dwarka in 2019.

Though the Rouse Avenue Court had issued a directive for the registration of an FIR on March 11, the station house officer of the Dwarka South Police Station instead moved an application on Tuesday seeking a certified copy of the complaint and the related application. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal of the court granted the request, setting March 28 as the next date for compliance.

The legal battle began when a complaint was filed by one Shiv Kumar Saxena, who alleged that large hoardings featuring Kejriwal, Gulab and others had been unlawfully placed in Dwarka. A status report filed in 2022 by the Dwarka South Police Station had concluded that no hoardings were found at the time of the investigation. Consequently, the metropolitan magistrate of the Dwarka court dismissed the case on September 15 that year. However, Saxena pursued a revision petition before the Rouse Avenue Court, which allowed the plea and directed a fresh hearing.

During subsequent proceedings, the session court ordered a reconsideration of the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Saxena’s legal counsel argued that while the police status report stated that no hoardings were present at the time of inspection, it failed to address whether they existed at the time the complaint was filed.

The additional public prosecutor (APP), representing the state, opposed the plea, highlighting inconsistencies in the names mentioned in different versions of the complaint.

The court, however, dismissed the APP’s argument. The order clarified that the police have full authority to identify and prosecute people based on investigative findings.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
Open in App
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com