Delhi Court Upholds Order Discharging Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy CM Manish Sisodia & Others In Assault Case
A Delhi Court on Wednesday dismissed the revision petition filed by Former Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash challenging the order discharging Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and nine others in a case of the alleged assault on him.Special CBI Judge Geetanjali Goel upheld the order passed by ACMM Sachin Gupta observing that the revision petition was...
A Delhi Court on Wednesday dismissed the revision petition filed by Former Delhi Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash challenging the order discharging Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and nine others in a case of the alleged assault on him.
Special CBI Judge Geetanjali Goel upheld the order passed by ACMM Sachin Gupta observing that the revision petition was without merits.
"The Trial Court rightly discharged Arvind Kejriwal (A-3), Manish Sisodia (A-4), Rajesh Rishi (A-5), Nitin Tyagi (A-6), Praveen Kumar (A-7), Ajay Dutt (A-8), Sanjeev Jha (A-9), Rituraj Govind (A-10), Rajesh Gupta (A-11), Madan Lal (A- 12) and Dinesh Mohania (A-13) and further correctly did not charge Amanatullah Khan (A-1) and Prakash Jarwal (A-2) for the offences under Sections 342/506(ii)/120- B/109/114 IPC," the Court observed.
The Court also observed that there was no infirmity, illegality or perversity or impropriety in the impugned order and that the same was passed after considering the material on record including the statements of witnesses.
"Applying the test for framing of charge laid down in a catena of decisions, no ground has been made out by the petitioner for interfering with the order of the Ld. Trial Court or for directing framing of charge against A-3 to A-13 for any offence or for directing framing of charges against A-1 and A-2 for the offences under Sections 342/506(ii)/120-B/109/114 IPC," the Court added.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan appearing for CM Arvind Kejriwal in the matter had argued that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and that the Trial Court had dealt with the issues in an appropriate manner. It was also submitted that the Trial Court had considered the factual conspectus and looked into the infirmities in the case of the prosecution.
Hariharan also argued that the first statement on the basis of which the proceedings started showed that no offence could be made out against the CM on a bare reading of it and that the complaint was made after a gap of 12 hours.
He further submitted that there was no meeting of minds between the accused persons and from the statements of witnesses, it was pointed out that the action of the two MLAs of allegedly heckling the petitioner was sudden.
It was also contended that there had been directions by the CM on two earlier occasions to issue the advertisements but the petitioner was not coming forward with an answer and therefore, being the Chief Minister, he was entitled to call a meeting.
Furthermore, he also argued that the conduct of the CM prior and post the incident showed that there was no meeting of minds and that there was nothing to show that there was any conspiracy or unlawful assembly. It was argued that it was a lawful meeting and except for the persons to whom specific acts were attributed nothing was made out in the matter.
Senior Advocate Sidharth appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Rebecca John along with Advocate Mohd. Irshad appeared for Prakash Jarwal. Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appeared for Manish Sisodia.
The revision petition stated that a perusal of the impugned order revealed that the Trial Court had conducted a "fishing and roving enquiry into the allegations in the Chargesheet" and had drawn erroneous inferences and conclusions without having the benefit of examination of the prosecution witnesses.
Accordingly, the plea had sought setting aside of the Impugned Order and also to order framing of charges against against concerned persons under sec. 342, 506(ii), 120-B, 109 and 114 of IPC.
About The Controversy
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.
About The Impugned Order
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sachin Gupta 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.
"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," the Court had said.
"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 had added.
Further noting that the meeting was being attended by the complainant in the discharge of his official duties, the Court had remarked that such a meeting consisting of CM, Deputy CM, MLAs and Chief Secretary (complainant) can not be called an unlawful assembly.
The Court had 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 had 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.
Also, emphasising that Kejriwal's conduct was inconsistent with the charge of conspiracy, the Court had 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.