Stating that a complainant cannot seek assistance from the accused during a case, a Delhi court has dismissed a plea by a man who had filed a complaint against AAP MLA Akhilesh Pati Tripathi. Complainant Vivek Garg had sought documents to know the MLA’s “actual economic condition”, in order to substantiate his allegation that he had lied in his election affidavit.
Garg had filed a complaint with a Delhi court in 2015, asking it to investigate a cheating offence against the MLA. It was alleged that Tripathi filed an affidavit, wherein he disclosed that his parents were “not dependant” on him.
But after becoming an MLA, he obtained a medical card under the Delhi Government Health Scheme, declaring his parents as “dependant” to obtain wrongful gains, the complainant alleged. The court had summoned the MLA as an accused.
The complaint further said Tripathi got reimbursements of Rs 2 lakh, Rs 1.75 lakh and Rs 1.81 lakh for medical bills of his mother. It was stated that the father of the accused had retired as a principal of a government school in Uttar Pradesh and was drawing a family pension of more than Rs 3,500, so neither the mother nor the father were entitled to any medical facility.
The MLA’s counsel, however, argued that the term dependency does not just mean “financial dependency”, but also “physical dependency”.
Garg then moved an application seeking certain documents, such as copies of medical card, health insurance policies, passport and visa, to know the accused’s actual “economic condition”. But the court said that legally, the application is not maintainable as the accused cannot be directed to produce documents.
“It appears that now the complainant, at this stage of the trial, wants to do a fishing inquiry into allegations, which is impermissible… The basis on which the application is moved is in itself fallacious… The case set up by the complainant has to be proved by him and for that purpose, the complainant cannot say that he needs the assistance of the accused to prosecute him. Such a request is against the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence,” said the court.