Delhi court refuses cognisance of chargesheet against ex-aap MLA Rituraj Jha

Aap MLA Rituraj Jha. File | Photo credit: the Hindu

A delhi court has refused to take cognisance of a chargesheet against former aap MLA aap MLA Rituraj Govind Jha and others in a case of allegedly definition police ordered police

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal Said even IF it was assumed that he disobeyed the Order, Such disobedience was not shown to have havhe caused any obstruction, annoyance or inyance or iny Anyone.

“Even if it assumed that proposed accused Persons disobeyed the Order of ACP, Aman Vihar, Such Disobediencece is not shown to have caused or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance or engine Risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person with lawfully employed. Since no offense has been made out from the police report, this court declines to take cognisance of the offense, ”The judge said in the order passed on FEBRUARY 21.

On March 24, 2024, Mr. Jha, Along with Councilor Ravindra Bhardwaj and other works of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Gathered and Started Protesting when the Model Code of Conduct (McC) was in effect, and they triked to Burni An Effigy An Effigy of the Prame Minister and Enforcement Directorate.

The accused was detailed for defying police order and was charged under section 188 (disobedience to order of a public servant) IPC.

The Judge also pulled up the problem officer over the delay in Investigation.

“This court fails to understand the work of enjoyment agencies and specially the delhi police in the present case.” Firstly, the police report has not stated the ingredients of the alleged offense. As stated Above The Present Police Report Fails to Show even prima factor what constituted an offense punishable under section 188 ipc and no preliminary ore ore ore legal opinion was told Investigating Officer Before Registering An Fir, “The Judge said.

The judge said the investment officer Ought to have gathered enough evidence and legal opinion to see if the ingredients of the offense were actually made out.

“And since the iO failed to form a rationale opinion before registered the FIR, this court finds the same as a reason for delaying the investment and Ultimately filing of the police. When the entry investigation requires 13 documents and four witnesses, then it is shocking that Investigating Officer Kept Such An Investigation An Investigation Pending For Eight Months and Police Report Has Been Fled AF Nine Months, “The Judge said.

“In fact, there was no differentce 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 ISSUD 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 accept. Neither the sho nor the accept the io as to what tooks

“The judge directed a copy of the order be sent to the DCP Concerned for Information and Necessary Action,” IF Warranted.