Delhi Police on Saturday submitted a status report before the Rouse Avenue Court in connection with a case of alleged defacement of public property involving former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former MLA Gulab Singh, and MCD councillor Nitika Sharma.
The report, filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal, states that consistent efforts are underway to trace the accused. Police also noted that a site plan was prepared on April 3 based on inputs from the complainant.
Taking the report on record, the court listed the matter for further hearing on May 3 and granted the investigating authorities more time to file their responses.
Case Background
The FIR was registered on March 28 following the court’s direction earlier on March 11, in response to a complaint filed by Shiv Kumar Saksena. The complainant had alleged that multiple hoardings, banners, and posters were illegally installed across various public locations in Dwarka in 2019—violating the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007.
As per the complaint, the hoardings included greetings for religious festivals and announcements featuring the names and images of Arvind Kejriwal, Gulab Singh, and Nitika Sharma. Some hoardings also carried images of national leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP figures.
Saksena claimed that despite raising the matter with police, no immediate action was taken. An earlier status report filed by Dwarka South Police in 2022 stated that no such hoardings were visible at the time and hence, no cognizable offence could be made out. The Metropolitan Magistrate had then dismissed the complaint.
However, the dismissal was challenged by Saksena through a revision petition. The Sessions Court set aside the earlier order and directed a fresh hearing, instructing the Trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and examine if a cognizable offence was made out.
Arguments & Court Observations
The Legal Aid Counsel for the complainant argued that the 2022 status report failed to address whether the hoardings existed on the original date of the alleged offence. He emphasized the need for an investigation, stating that the complainant could not be expected to determine who was responsible for putting up the hoardings.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the hoardings lacked details of the printing press, making it difficult to trace their origin. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the names mentioned in various complaints.
However, the court rejected these objections, stating, “The omission or inclusion of certain names by the complainant cannot guide the course of investigation. The investigating agency has the authority to name any person as an accused based on the evidence gathered.”
With the investigation still ongoing, the case remains listed for review on May 3.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
