Saxena VS Kejriwal: Compliance Report Not Filed, Police Seek Certified Copies Of Complaint & Plea For FIR

The Delhi Police on Tuesday failed to submit a compliance report in response to the directive issued by the Rouse Avenue Court regarding the registration of a FIR.

The court, in an order dated March 11, instructed the police to file an FIR based on a complaint against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former MLA Gulab Singh, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Councillor Nitika Sharma.

During the proceedings, the Station House Officer of Dwarka South Police Station submitted an application requesting a copy of the original complaint and associated documents filed by the complainant.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal granted the request and directed the SHO to procure a certified copy. The court scheduled the matter for compliance review on March 28.

Allegations Of Public Property Defacement

The case pertains to allegations of public property defacement in Dwarka in 2019. The complainant, Shiv Kumar Saxena, alleged that the accused individuals misused public funds by erecting oversized hoardings at various public locations, including Sector-11 DDA Park, Dwarka road crossings, and other Delhi Development Authority (DDA) green spaces.

One such hoarding allegedly announced the Delhi Government’s forthcoming registration for Kartarpur Sahib pilgrimages, prominently displaying the names and images of Arvind Kejriwal and Gulab Singh. Another hoarding conveyed greetings for Guru Nanak Dev Jayanti and Kartik Purnima and featured the names and photographs of several political figures, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, and JP Nadda.

Despite previous complaints to the police, no action was taken. In a status report filed in 2022, the SHO of Dwarka South stated that no such hoardings were present at the alleged locations at the time of filing, and consequently, no cognizable offence was identified.

Based on this report, the Metropolitan Magistrate of Dwarka dismissed the complaint on September 15, 2022.

Court’s Justification For FIR Registration

Following the dismissal, the complainant filed a revision petition before the Rouse Avenue Court. The Sessions Court allowed the petition, remanding the matter for reconsideration and directing a fresh assessment of the application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court emphasized the necessity of a detailed order on whether the complainant’s allegations disclosed a cognizable offence.

In its March 11 ruling, ACJM Mittal upheld the complainant’s plea and directed the police to file an FIR under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, along with any other relevant charges. The court determined that the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was meritorious and warranted police investigation.

Legal Arguments

During the proceedings, the complainant’s Legal Aid Counsel (LAC) argued that the status report failed to establish whether the hoardings existed at the alleged time of the incident. The LAC contended that an independent investigation was necessary, as the complainant lacked the means to identify the individuals responsible for installing the hoardings.

Conversely, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State opposed the application, arguing that the hoardings lacked identifiable details regarding their origin, such as printing press information. The APP asserted that, in the absence of such evidence, determining responsibility was infeasible.

Additionally, the APP highlighted that the complainant had previously named multiple individuals, including the Prime Minister, in prior complaints but had omitted several names in the present application, questioning its procedural validity under Section 154(3) CrPC.

The court rejected the APP’s objections, emphasizing that the omission of certain individuals did not undermine the necessity of an investigation. The ruling clarified that the investigating agency retained the authority to implicate any person whose involvement was substantiated through inquiry, regardless of whether they were named in the initial complaint.

As the matter awaits further proceedings, the police are expected to comply with the court’s directive and submit their findings in the next hearing scheduled for March 28.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International