Explained: Why did a court direct framing of charges against Delhi BJP MP Yogender Chandolia?
The complainant in the case was a traffic policeman, Head Constable Raj Kumar. He alleged that on October 7, 2020, he was stopped by the MP from “discharging his duty” near Shiv Mandir in Karol Bagh.
3 min read
In 2020, an FIR was registered against Chandolia at the Prasad Nagar police station. (Photo: X)A Delhi court on Saturday had ordered the framing of charges against Yogender Chandolia, the BJP MP from Northwest Delhi, in a case where he was accused of allegedly assaulting a public servant in the Capital in 2020.
While discharging Chandolia under section 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) IPC, the court directed framing of charges under sections 341, 353, 356 and 34 (wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty and assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person) of the IPC.
What is the case?
In 2020, an FIR was registered against Chandolia at the Prasad Nagar police station.
The complainant in the case was a traffic policeman, Head Constable Raj Kumar. He alleged that on October 7, 2020, he was stopped by the MP from “discharging his duty” near Shiv Mandir in Karol Bagh.
Earlier that day, the Prasad Nagar Police Station had received a call that a group of people had “blocked a crane”. Kumar was on “crane duty”, lifting vehicles that were parked improperly.
As per his complaint, he pointed towards a scooter that was improperly parked. Following this, Kumar alleged, the BJP MP started shouting at him, asking why he wasn’t lifting other cars that were not parked properly. Kumar claimed that Chandolia blocked the crane, abused him, and “incited” people to gather at the spot.
After this, Kumar alleged, he took out his phone to record the incident. Chandolia allegedly tried to snatch his phone and pulled him down as he was trying to board the crane.
Kumar further alleged that an “unknown accomplice” of Chandolia snatched his mobile phone. During the investigation, two pen drives containing CCTV footage of the incident were seized by the police.
What did the court rule?
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of Rouse Avenue Court, in her order dated May 3, noted the “existence of common intention”.
“The fact that the accused had earlier tried to snatch the mobile phone of the complainant and that, later on, the said mobile phone, though snatched by a third person, was kept by the accused, shows the existence of common intention, which might have developed at the spot, between the accused and the snatcher. These facts prima facie show the commission of the offence…,” the ACJM said.
Chandolia’s counsel, on the other hand, had argued that no CCTV footage of the incident had been procured, which “cast a shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution”. The lawyer also argued that the accused was a public representative and was protesting against the unlawful conduct of the traffic police.
You May Like
