Khushi Bajpai
Published on: October 14, 2022 at 19:59 IST
In connection with the 2020 Delhi Assembly Elections, a Delhi Court recently rejected a Section 156(3) plea that sought to file a FIR against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Aadmi Party leaders Gopal Rai and Prakash Jarwal, and others.
Further, In light of the 2020 Delhi Assembly Elections, Sessions Court Judge Vrinda Kumari rejected the complaint with a cost of Rs. 1000 since it failed to allege the commission of any crimes that might have been prosecuted.
“There are no justifications for taking cognizance or directing the registration of a FIR. Therefore, the application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code is denied, with a cost of Rs. 1000 to be deposited with DLSA,” in a judgment dated September 27, the judge stated.
Dal Chand Kapil, a Scheduled Caste (SC) Community member who ran for office in the Deoli (SC) constituency in 2015 and 2020, submitted the complaint. Kapil claimed that Jarwal, who was elected to the reserved seat in 2020, is a member of the Bairwa/Berwa Community, an OBC in Delhi.
According to the complaint, the SC Community’s representation in the Delhi Assembly has been decreased by one seat as a result of his election from the district.
Kapil said that Jarwal was ineligible to run for the seat and that a fake certificate had been issued to deceive and fool the Election Commission of India officials.
He further argued that Kejriwal and Rai are jointly and severally responsible for the “plot” to give the party ticket to a “non-SC candidate” in order to reduce the representation of the SC in the legislature.
Kapil asserted in a complaint to the Returning Officer that the SC Certificate dated May 11, 2006, issued by the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was a fraudulent document.
Kapil had also made a police report in April 2021, but no FIR was filed. Additionally, a complaint was made to the relevant DCP, but Kapil informed the court that it was unsuccessful.
The police personnel were alleged to have violated Rule 5(1) of the SC & ST Rules 1995 and Section 4 of the SC & ST Act by failing to file the FIR.
In accordance with Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the SC & ST Act, 1989, as well as Sections 3 (1)(q), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(vii), a FIR was sought against the proposed respondents. Invoking Sections 166, 167, 190, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, and 217 IPC against the Returning Officer was also sought to do.
The court read the SC certificate that had been granted in Jarwal’s name and observed that it had been done so by the SDM under the heading “such SC/ST person who had migrated from other State or UT Administration.”
The judge also took judicial notice of the 2018 directives from the Centre, which asked all state and union territory administrations to issue SC/ST certificates to migrants from other states upon presentation of the original certificate issued to their fathers proving their ancestry, unless the authority felt that a thorough investigation was required prior to the issuance of such certificates.
“The Court is unable to form a prima facie opinion that the Scheduled Caste Certificate dated 11.05.2006 is a forged or false document or that it was obtained by providing false information in light of the aforementioned instructions from the Government of India as well as the contents of the document. No offense punishable by Sections 420/465/468/471 of the IPC has been established,” the judge stated.
It included, “Additionally, it seems that the complainant has admitted to engaging in a conspiracy to somehow put the current case within the purview of the scheduled offense under section 120B of the IPC. Therefore, no violation of Section 3(2)(v)(va) & (vii) of the SC & ST Act is established.”
The court further noted that the complainant had filed an election petition in 2020 challenging Jarwal’s election before the Delhi High Court, which petition is still pending.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi said the matter is still pending.
Additionally, it was observed that the complaint to the court was filed two years after the Election Petition was filed with the High Court and one year after the police received the complaint, with the addition that no convincing explanation for the delay was offered.
“Even if it is assumed at this time (despite the fact that the matter is still pending before the Hon. High Court of Delhi) that Respondent No. 6, who is a member of the SC/ST community in Rajasthan.”
“But the OBC community in Delhi, was ineligible to run for office from the reserved assembly constituency in Delhi, his election to the Delhi State Assembly in 2020 from that seat does not constitute an atrocity as defined in Section 2 of the Indian Constitution (a) r/w,” the court added, “Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST Act, 1989.”
The court further noted that the complainant’s attempt to bring the Representation of the People Act’s subject matter under the SC & ST Act’s purview constitutes a “abuse of procedure.”