New Delhi [India], February 21 : The Rouse Avenue court on Friday declined to take cognizance of a charge sheet filed against former AAP MLA Rituraj Jha and three others accused over delay in the investigation. Delhi police filed the charge sheet nine months after registration of the FIR.
"What is more disturbing is the blatant and casual forwarding of the police report by the concerned SHO and ACP. 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 court said.
This case is related to disobedience of orders issued by a government official and violation of a prohibitory order issued by the ACP.
An FIR was registered at police station Aman Vihar in March 2024.
It was alleged that Rituraj Jha and the three accused who were MCD councillors gathered at a place and started protesting at the time when the model code of conduct (MCC) was in force on March 24, 2024.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal not only declined the cognizance, saying no offence is made out in the charge sheet.
The court said, " From the police report, even if it assumed that proposed accused persons disobeyed the Order dated 20.03.2024 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 cognizance of the offence," ACJM Paras Dalal ordered on February 21.
The court also pulled up the police over delay in the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.
"This Court would refrain to discuss the conduct of the investigating agency, and same may be subject to scrutiny by the concerned department," the court said.
The court has directed that a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned DCP for information and necessary action if warranted.
While declining the cognizance the court said that it is a known fact to everyone and especially to enforcement agencies that former and sitting MLAs as well as MPs are tried by a special court constituted by the Supreme Court of India.
The reason is speedy trial and speedy trial cannot attain its purpose unless speedy investigation is done. Yet, this Court fails to understand the working of enforcement agencies, especially the Delhi Police in the present case, the court said.
The court pointed out that 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 IO 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," the court said.
While pulling up the investigation officer (IO), the court said, "When the entire investigation required thirteen documents and four witnesses, then it is shocking that the investigating officer kept such an investigation pending for eight months, and a police report has been filed after almost nine months."