|
The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to stay the investigation into an FIR registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on a complaint filed by ACP Vivek Bhagat against two journalists, observing that it could not pass an order restraining the police from proceeding with the probe.
Justice Mini Pushkarna said the matter would be heard immediately after the Dussehra break. Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for journalists Rosy and Gajendra Singh, requested the court to direct the Delhi Police not to take further steps in the investigation. Mir submitted that Rosy had lodged a complaint against Bhagat before the police registered the SC/ST Act case against her. He sought interim protection, arguing that the sequence of events warranted the courts intervention. However, Justice Pushkarna declined the request to halt the investigation, stating, I cannot pass such an order [staying investigation]. The FIR was registered at Parliament Street police station following Bhagats complaint concerning alleged caste-related remarks during a protest at Buta Singh Chowk on October 3. Rosy, an independent journalist, has separately accused Bhagat of sexual assault during the incident. In her petition before the High Court, she has alleged that the FIR against her was lodged in retaliation for her complaint and has denied making the casteist remarks attributed to her. She has sought quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings, along with interim protection against arrest and other coercive action. The petition states that Rosy had lodged a complaint against Bhagat on October 3, alleging sexual assault while she was covering a protest at Buta Singh Chowk. Her complaint was subsequently transferred to the Crime Branch for inquiry. She has contended that despite cooperating with the inquiry and seeking preservation of CCTV footage and police body-camera recordings, no FIR had been registered on her complaint when the case against her was lodged. The FIR against Rosy invokes Sections 221, 356(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In her plea, she has questioned the applicability of these provisions and alleged that the proceedings were initiated to intimidate her and discourage her from pursuing her complaint against the ACP. (ANI)
|
