Delhi Police files status report in Arvind Kejriwal, others’ public property defacement case; more time sought to trace accused | – The Times of India
NEW DELHI: Delhi Police on Saturday filed a status report before Rouse Avenue Court in a case related to alleged defacement of public property involving former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, former MLA Gulab Singh, and MCD councillor Nitika Sharma.
The report stated that consistent efforts are being made to trace the accused persons and sought additional time for further investigation.
The status report was submitted before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal, who took it on record and listed the matter for hearing on May 3.
As per the police, a site plan was prepared on April 3 at the instance of the complainant and has been placed on record. “Furthermore, consistent efforts are being made to trace the accused persons,” the report stated.
Earlier, on March 28, police had informed the court that an FIR had been registered based on a complaint alleging violation of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act in the Dwarka area.
The Rouse Avenue Court had, on March 11, directed the police to register an FIR and submit a compliance report in connection with a complaint filed against Kejriwal, Gulab Singh, and Nitika Sharma. The order came in response to a complaint by Shiv Kumar Saksena under Section 156(3) of CrPC.
The complaint alleged that huge hoardings bearing names and photographs of Kejriwal, Singh, and Sharma were installed at various public locations including Sector-11 DDA Park, Dwarka road and crossing, DDA MP green area behind the sports complex, Sector-10 main crossing, Sector-10/11 junction, Sector-6/10 crossing, power poles, and park boundary walls—violating public property norms.
It was also claimed that one hoarding read, “The Delhi Government will soon start registration for darshan at Kartarpur Sahib” and bore photographs of then CM Arvind Kejriwal and Gulab Singh. Another hoarding carried greetings for Guru Nanak Dev Jayanti and Kartik Purnima with photographs of Nitika Sharma and other leaders, including PM Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, J.P. Nadda, Parvesh Verma, Manoj Tiwari, and Ramesh Bidhuri.
The complainant alleged that despite raising the matter with the police, no action was taken.
A status report was earlier filed in 2022 by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Dwarka South Police Station, stating that the complaint dated back to 2019 and, at the time of filing the report, no such hoardings were present at the alleged sites, hence no cognizable offence was made out.
Based on this report, the Metropolitan Magistrate of Dwarka Court had dismissed the complaint on September 15, 2022.
However, the complainant challenged the dismissal and filed a revision petition before Rouse Avenue Court, which was allowed. The Sessions Court reverted the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing and directed it to pass a speaking order, considering whether a cognizable offence was disclosed in the complaint.
During subsequent arguments, the Legal Aid Counsel (LAC) for the complainant contended that the earlier status report was vague and did not address the alleged presence of hoardings at the time the offence was committed. The LAC argued that a proper investigation was necessary as it was beyond the complainant’s capacity to determine who was responsible for installing the hoardings.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that the photographs attached to the complaint did not include printing press details, making it difficult to trace the source. The APP also pointed out that several names, including that of the Prime Minister, were earlier mentioned by the complainant but later omitted from the revised complaint, indicating lack of compliance with Section 154(3) CrPC.
The court, however, rejected the APP’s objection and clarified that the investigation process is not dependent on the complainant’s inclusion or exclusion of specific names. It stated, “The mentioning or omitting the name of certain persons by the complainant cannot determine the course of investigation. The investigating agency has ample power to array any person as accused, though not named as an accused in the present application/complaint, whose complicity in the commission of the offence is established from the investigation.”
