New Delhi: A Delhi court has refused to take cognisance of a chargesheet against former AAP MLA Rituraj Govind Jha and others in a case of allegedly defying police order during a protest in March 2024.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal said even if it was assumed that he disobeyed the order, such disobedience was not shown to have caused any obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any anyone.
"Even if it assumed that proposed accused persons disobeyed the order of ACP, Aman Vihar, such disobedience is not shown to have caused or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed. Since no offence has been made out from the police report, this court declines to take cognisance of the offence," the judge said in the order passed on February 21.
On March 24, 2024 Jha, along with councilor Ravindra Bhardwaj and other workers of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) gathered and started protesting when the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in effect and they tried to burn effigy of the prime minister and Enforcement Directorate.
The accused were detained for defying police order and were charged under section 188 (disobedience to order of a public servant) IPC.
The judge also pulled up the probe officer over the delay in investigation.
"This court fails to understand the working of enforcement agencies and specially the Delhi Police in the present case. Firstly, the police report has not stated the ingredients of the alleged offence. As stated above the present police report fails to show even prima facie what fact constituted an offence punishable under Section 188 IPC and no preliminary inquiry or legal opinion was obtained by the investigating officer before registering an FIR," the judge said.
The judge said the investigating officer ought to have gathered enough evidence and legal opinion to see if the ingredients of the offence were actually made out.
"And since the IO failed to form a rationale opinion before registering the FIR, this Court finds the same as a reason for delaying the investigation and ultimately filing of the police report. When the entire investigation required 13 documents and four witnesses, then it is shocking that investigating officer kept such an investigation pending for eight months and police report has been filed after almost nine months," the judge said.
In fact, there was no difference in the first complaint, contents of FIR and the chargesheet, except that the FIR had the details of registering process and then chargesheet has fact about notice issued to the proposed accused and process of filing the chargesheet, the judge said.
"What is more disturbing is the blatant and casual forwarding of the police report by the SHO and ACP concerned. Neither the SHO nor the ACP questioned the IO as to what took him 10 months when there was no investigation required to be done," the judge said.
The judge directed a copy of the order be sent to the DCP concerned for information and necessary action, if warranted.
