Chief Secretary Assault Case: Delhi Court Discharges CM Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, And 9 Others-Read Judgment

However, the special MP/MLA court, presided over by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sachin Gupta has ordered framing of charges against two AAP MLAs - Amantullah and Prakash Jarwal - in the case.

The case before the Court

An FIR, in this case, was registered on Prakash's complaint in which he had alleged that on February 19, 2018 at 12 midnight, he was called to the CM's residence and was assaulted in accordance with a premeditated plan and in furtherance of the conspiracy of all present with the intention to criminally intimidate, cause hurt with a motive to deter him from the discharge of his lawful duty and compel him to follow unlawful directions.

It was alleged that he was called on the pretext of discussing the issue of difficulty in the release of certain T.V. advertisements relating to the completion of three years of current Government, and there some of the MLAs present there allegedly assaulted and intimidated the complainant.

Thereafter, Kejriwal and 12 others were booked in this case under Sections 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 323 (Causing hurt), 342 (Punishment for wrongful confinement), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 120-B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy), and 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence commit­ted in the prosecution of common object), among others of the Indian Penal Code.

So far as the accused persons namely Kejriwal, Sisodia, Rajesh Rishi, Sanjeev Jha, Rajesh Gupta, Madan Lal and Dinesh Mohania are concerned, they were roped in the case on the basis that they formed part of the unlawful assembly, hatched criminal conspiracy along with the other accused persons.

Also, some overt acts were attributed to Amanatullah Khan, Prakash Jarwal, Praveen Kumar, Nitin Tyagi, Ajay Dutt and Rituraj Govind by the complainant alleging that they shared the common intention with them and also abetted the commission of offences in the present case.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that no inference could be drawn of the presence of any unlawful assembly in prosecution of common unlawful object or any criminal conspiracy, as alleged, being hatched by the accused persons.

Importantly, the Court noted thus:

"The meeting, which was called by the Chief Minister and was attended by the elected representatives of Delhi Legislative Assembly, top bureaucrat i.e. Chief Secretary (complainant) and other officials namely Mr. V.K. Jain, cannot be termed as an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common unlawful object or any criminal conspiracy, as alleged, being hatched by the accused person, merely because during the course of the meeting, while answering the questions of the MLAs by the complainant, two of them allegedly assaulted and hit him or some of the MLAs allegedly started shouting, abusing or threatening the complainant."

"There is also no material available on record to infer that the alleged act of assault and intimidation by some of the accused persons present there was done in furtherance of the common intention of all present there or that there was any pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds or prior concert amongst the accused persons present there," the Court further added.

Importantly, noting that the meeting was being attended by the complainant in the discharge of his official duties, the Court remarked that such a meeting consisting of CM, Deputy CM, MLAs and Chief Secretary (complainant) can not be called an unlawful assembly.

The Court also opined that labelling such a meeting, even called in late hours at the residence of the CM, attended by CM, Dy. CM and eleven other MLAs, as unlawful assembly or part of any criminal conspiracy, can seriously hamper the smooth functioning of the Government and public interest would suffer ultimately.

Thus, the Court held that merely because the meeting was called at 12 midnight by the Chief Minister, it does not give rise to the proposition that it was under a pre-planned conspiracy.

Importantly, the Court also questioned thus:

"if there would have been any prior meeting of minds or pre-meditation amongst them to commit an offence against the complainant, why would Kejriwal choose his own residence for that purpose and even allowed the complainant to accompany with Mr. V.K. Jain, to create a witness against himself in this case."

Thus, emphasising that Kejriwal's conduct was inconsistent with the charge of conspiracy, the Court opined that it was clearly demonstrated from the circumstances that there was no prior meeting of minds, prior concert, conspiracy or pre-meditation amongst the accused persons to commit any offence against the complainant.

Therefore, the Court concluded observing thus:

"…it appears that the alleged incident with the complainant happened suddenly, after some of the MLAs started questioning him over some issues and in the spur of the moment, two of the aforesaid MLAs allegedly assaulted and hit him, without any conspiracy, prior meeting of minds or pre-meditation amongst the accused persons present there. If during the course of a meeting called by the Chief Minister (A-3), whose own conduct is not suspicious at all, if something untoward allegedly happened, that itself does not render the meeting an unlawful assembly or does not make the presence of CM, Deputy CM and other accused MLAs as part of or acting under a criminal conspiracy or sharing common intention or even abetting in any manner, commission of alleged offence"