‘No illegality’: Delhi court upholds order framing charges against BJP MP Yogender Chandolia for assaulting constable

BJP MP Yogender Chandolia has been accused of assaulting an on-duty traffic constable on October 8, 2020.

Chandolia was accused of assaulting an on-duty traffic constable on October 8, 2020.Chandolia was accused of assaulting an on-duty traffic constable on October 8, 2020.

A sessions court in Delhi last week dismissed a revision petition filed by BJP MP Yogender Chandolia against a magistrate court’s order that framed charges against him for assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant.

In his order dated October 18, Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Court said that the court found “no illegality, impropriety, incorrectness, irregularity, or arbitrariness” in the order of the magistrate court and found the revision petition to be “meritless”.

Chandolia was accused of assaulting an on-duty traffic constable on October 8, 2020. Head Constable Raj Kumar, the complainant in this case, had alleged that the MP had stopped him from discharging his duty by pulling him down from a crane, and that his associate had allegedly snatched his phone.

Story continues below this ad

In May last year, a magisterial court in Delhi had framed charges against the MP under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 356 (assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The BJP MP had filed a revision petition challenging the order.

“In the present case, when the complainant (constable) specifically stated that the accused pulled him down from the crane after obstructing his way, it clearly prima facie indicates that criminal force was used with the intent to cause fear or annoyance to the complainant,” the order stated.

“When the complainant tried to board his crane to escape from the revisionist (Chandolia), he was attempted to be pulled down, and when he handed over his phone to a labourer, Beera, an associate of the revisionist, snatched the phone,” the court further said.

Story continues below this ad

“The argument of the revisionist that the contents of the FIR and the statements of witnesses do not corroborate each other cannot be considered at the stage of framing charges. If there is any contradiction, the same can be highlighted during the trial by the revisionist after recording evidence,” it added.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement