AAP rioting case: Court to hear plea against member on 29 Apr

New Delhi: A court in New Delhi on Monday fixed 29 April to hear arguments on a plea by Delhi Police challenging an order of a magistrate who had refused to take cognisance of a charge sheet filed against an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) member in an alleged rioting case. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Daya Prakash said that he would hear the arguments on 29 April on the revision petition filed by the police in the matter in which a charge sheet was filed against AAP member Shazia Ilmi. [caption id=“attachment_690226” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The police alleged that the protestors started running towards the PM’s house, causing obstruction to traffic movement and also creating a law and order problem. AFP[/caption] The police had filed the charge sheet against her before Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Ashok Kumar alleging that on 1 August, 2012 about 300-400 protestors, under the leadership of Ilmi, were staging protest near India Gate here and she was “instigating” them to proceed towards the Prime Minister’s residence without having valid permission from the authorities. It had said that Ilmi instigated the protesters to move towards the PM’s residence and they were stopped by the police and were directed to return to Jantar Mantar but they did not follow the instructions and after pushing aside the barricades and ropes, they reached Rajpath crossing. The police alleged that the protestors started running towards the PM’s house, causing obstruction to traffic movement and also creating a law and order problem. The magistrate, however, had refused to take cognisance of the charge sheet filed for the offences punishable under various provisions of the IPC, including sections 145 (joining or continuing in unlawful assembly), 146 (rioting), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public function) and others. While refusing to take cognisance of the charge sheet Kumar had said, “I have come to the conclusion that even if all the facts alleged by the prosecution against the accused are considered to be true, they do no make out any offence as those alleged by the prosecution.” The police, in its revision petition filed before the sessions court, has challenged the order, saying that the magistrate has “failed to appreciate that even fundamental right of holding protest peacefully is subject to certain regulations like maintenance of public order which is itself mentioned in our Constitution.” It also said the magistrate had “failed to appreciate that non-compliance with the order to hold protest in the sanctioned area and disobedience of duly promulgated order of a public servant is an offence punishable under section 188 of IPC.” PTI