|
Delhi's Karkardooma Court has recently dismissed a revision petition moved by a lawyer against the magistrate court order refusing a direction for registration of the FIR against the then Deputy commissioner of police Meghna Yadav and other police officials for not taking any action on his complaint in 2019.
The revisionist prayed to set aside the order of the trial court and to direct the concerned police officials to register an FIR against the respondents. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai on October 1 dismissed the revision moved Ashwani Kumar Singh. " After going through the trial court record, including the application/complaint of the revisionist, the rulings as given by the revisionist, and the order of the learnt trial court, this court is of the view that there is no illegality or impropriety in the said order, and the same is absolutely correct," ASJ Bajpai said in the order passed on October 1. While dismissing the revision, the session court said, "As already observed by the court, in his complaint as filed before the trial court, there are no specific allegations, and in fact, it is hard to understand as to what the revisionist wanted to convey and what offences were committed by some of the respondents." Petitioner Advocate Ashwani Kumar Singh had challenged the order of October 21, 2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Karkardooma Court dismissing his application for registration of an FIR against the the DCP Shahadara Meghna Yadav. The revisionist had filed the complaint/application before the trial court against ten persons, including the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shahdara, Additional DCP, Shahdara, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shahdara, Inspector Farsh Bazar, I.O. regarding his complaint, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, and further three persons, namely Advocate Vardhan Gupta, Vijay Tyagi, counsel for EDMC, and K K Gupta, Inspector Health of EDMC, Shahdara. In the said complaint, the revisionist has not explained in what manner and what offences were committed by the respondents. Almost in each para of the complaint/application, the revisionist kept on saying that there were cognizable violations within the court premises near court no. 60 of the Karkardooma Courts, andnamed some respondents like Advocate Vardhan Gupta, Vijay Tyagi, counsel for EDMC, and K K Gupta, Inspector of Health, EDMC. In the said complaint, the grievance of the revisionist seems to be that he gave a complaint to the concerned police station, but the police did not take any action, the court noted. It must be noted that the complaint as filed by the revisionist in the trial court was under no provision of law, however, a prayer was made to direct the concerned police officers to lodge anFIR against the accused persons, the court said. (ANI)
|
