Delhi Court Issues Notice On Revision Plea By Former Chief Secy Challenging Order Discharging CM Arvind Kejriwal & Others In Assault Case

A Delhi Court on Monday issued notice on a 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 sought their responses while posting the matter for hearing on November 23.

The revision petition filed through Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra and Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw states that a perusal of the impugned order reveals 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.

"The incorrectness and illegality of the Impugned Order is also demonstrable as the Ld. Trial Court while upholding the version of the Prosecution that the Complainant/ Revisionist was physically assaulted by two Accused Persons namely Amanatullah Khan A-1 and Prakash Jarwal A-2, has at the same time by erroneous inferences and interpretations of the facts gravely erred in holding that such assault in an unusual and unexplained midnight meeting at the residence of A-3 was not a part of criminal conspiracy in which all the Accused Persons (A-1 to A-13) were participants," the plea adds.

Accordingly, the plea seeks 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.