The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition for a CBI probe into an alleged advocate assault at BCI premises, citing an alternative remedy before a magistrate. The court noted the alleged offense was non-cognizable under the new criminal laws.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR and an independent investigation by the CBI into the alleged assault of advocates at the Bar Council of India (BCI) premises on the intervening night of August 20-21, holding that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy before the magistrate.
Court Cites Alternative Remedy
Justice Girish Kathpalia said the petitioners could approach the concerned magistrate under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by filing a complaint case and, therefore, there was no ground to issue a writ of mandamus directing any agency to register a case and investigate the matter.
The court was hearing a plea filed by advocates Kunal Yadav and others seeking a direction to the CBI or another independent agency to register an FIR and conduct an investigation into the alleged assault on advocates inside and outside the BCI premises. The petition also sought preservation and handing over of CCTV footage of the BCI premises and directions to the BCI to decide a representation submitted by the petitioners.
Petitioners’ Allegations
According to the petitioners, a group of young advocates had assembled outside the BCI office on August 20 to stage a peaceful demonstration. They alleged that around 25-30 men, several of them dressed as advocates, entered the premises around 1.15-1.20 am and assaulted advocates who were sitting in protest. The petitioners alleged that the incident took place in the presence of police personnel.
The petitioners had submitted a complaint to the SHO of IP Estate police station on August 22 and representations to the BCI and the President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association. They subsequently approached the High Court seeking an independent probe.
However, the High Court noted that the petitioners had not approached the concerned DCP, equivalent to the Superintendent of Police, or the magistrate under the statutory mechanism prescribed under the BNSS. The court said no case had been set up to show that the SHO was guilty of negligence or inaction, nor had the petition explained why the statutory remedies were not efficacious.
Offence Deemed Non-Cognizable
The court further examined whether the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence warranting registration of an FIR. It observed that, based on the complaints placed before it, the allegation was that the persons involved had beaten, slapped, thrashed and dragged the petitioners, without allegedly using any weapon. Justice Kathpalia observed that such allegations, at the most, constituted the offence of causing hurt under Section 114 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is a non-cognizable offence. Consequently, the court held that under Section 174 BNSS, the magistrate was the appropriate authority to deal with the complaint and a police officer could not investigate such an offence in the circumstances.
The court also rejected the petitioners’ contention that a magistrate would be unable to order seizure of CCTV footage or undertake other investigative steps, observing that the provisions of Chapter XVI of the BNSS empower the magisterial court to take such steps. It also noted that the petitioners themselves had stated that videos of the alleged incident were available in the public domain.
The High Court also declined to issue directions on the petitioners’ representation to the BCI seeking, among other things, the resignation of BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, accountability of BCI members, advocate welfare measures, legal education reforms and consideration of a no-confidence motion. The court said these demands had no bearing on the prayer seeking investigation into the alleged incident.
Court Rejects Bias Claims
The court also expressed “respectful disapproval” of the submission that the Delhi Police would not conduct a fair investigation because respondent Manan Kumar Mishra is a Member of Parliament from the ruling dispensation. Justice Kathpalia said no specific basis had been provided for such an apprehension and observed that it was not fair to “tarnish the entire Delhi Police force” on that basis, particularly when the petitioners’ own case did not disclose a cognizable offence. The court also noted that the CBI itself is a government body.
The court accordingly dismissed the petition as not maintainable. The petitioners were represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan, Anurag Tiwary and Anushka Singh, while Additional Standing Counsel Amol Sinha appeared for the Delhi government. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)