New Delhi – A Delhi court has brought closure to a 2019 case related to alleged defacement of public property in Dwarka after Delhi Police reported finding no evidence against former chief minister and Aam Aadmi Party national convener Arvind Kejriwal. The court clears Kejriwal decision also exonerated former AAP MLA Gulab Chand and Dwarka BJP councillor Nitika Sharma from allegations involving misuse of public funds and illegal installation of political hoardings. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal of the Rouse Avenue Courts closed the proceedings on Tuesday after reviewing an untrace report filed by Delhi Police on December 4.
Original FIR and Allegations
The case that eventually saw the court clears Kejriwal originated from an FIR registered at Dwarka South police station on March 28 under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, which specifically deals with damage to public property. The allegations centered on the purported misuse of public funds and illegal installation of political hoardings in Dwarka during 2019. The case carried serious implications as the Act prescribes punishment of up to one year’s imprisonment along with a fine for violations.
Court’s Earlier Directive for Investigation
Before the court clears Kejriwal ruling came through, the court had taken a significantly different stance months earlier. On March 11, the court had held that the allegations disclosed a cognisable offence under the Act. At that time, the court directed police to conduct a thorough and comprehensive investigation, including identifying the origin of the disputed hoardings and determining the persons responsible for installing them. This directive reflected the court’s initial assessment of the seriousness of the allegations presented.
Police Unable to Establish Evidence
The development where court clears Kejriwal followed Delhi Police’s submission of an untrace report detailing their inability to establish crucial evidence. Police stated they could not determine the source of the alleged hoardings or establish any connection linking them to the accused persons. A critical piece of evidence—a CD provided by the complainant showing the alleged hoardings—could not be examined by the forensic science laboratory as it was in broken condition, severely hampering the investigation’s progress.
Investigation Challenges and Outcomes
The investigation that ultimately led to court clears Kejriwal encountered multiple obstacles. Police reported that the printing press allegedly responsible for producing the hoardings could not be traced despite efforts. “During inquiry accused persons were sent notice and questioned…no evidence was found against accused persons,” the untrace report stated. These investigative failures proved decisive in the case’s resolution, as authorities could not substantiate the original allegations with tangible evidence.
Also Read: BJP Protests Against Atishi: Explosive Delhi Assembly Disruption
Details of Complainant’s Allegations
The case before court clears Kejriwal originated from a complaint filed by Dwarka resident Saxena, who alleged that several hoardings appeared at different locations in 2019. One hoarding stated that the then AAP government in Delhi would soon start registrations for darshan at Kartarpur Sahib in Pakistan, featuring photographs of Arvind Kejriwal and then-Matiala MLA Chand. Another hoarding allegedly displayed Sharma’s photo alongside images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other senior BJP leaders. Saxena contended these hoardings were illegally installed, defacing public property in the area.
Complainant’s Persistent Legal Efforts
The journey to where court clears Kejriwal involved persistent efforts by the complainant. Following his initial complaint to Dwarka South police station, Saxena wrote to the Dwarka deputy commissioner of police. After failing to receive a satisfactory response, he approached the Dwarka court seeking FIR registration. His application was dismissed in September 2022, with the court stating no field investigation was required. Undeterred, Saxena filed a review petition before the Rouse Avenue Court, which overturned the previous decision and directed the magistrate to reconsider the case.
Court’s Earlier Criticism of Police
Before the final decision where court clears Kejriwal, the court had sharply criticized Delhi Police for their case handling during earlier hearings. The court observed that the police’s action taken report remained silent on whether the hoardings were actually present at the relevant time. “The statement in the ATR that no hoardings were found on the date of inquiry appears to be an attempt by the investigating agency to play hoodwink with the court,” the order stated, expressing judicial displeasure with the investigation quality.
Prosecution’s Arguments Rejected
During proceedings before court clears Kejriwal, the prosecution argued that given the passage of time, gathering evidence would be impossible, particularly because details of the printing press were unavailable. However, the court firmly rejected this claim with strong language. “…This court cannot presume the fact that ordering investigation would be a futile exercise without even giving a chance to the investigating agency, especially in this era of scientific and technological advancement,” the order stated, reprimanding police for delays in filing reports.
Significance of the Verdict
The decision where court clears Kejriwal carries significant implications for all accused parties. After years of legal proceedings, the closure brings relief to Kejriwal, Gulab Chand, and Nitika Sharma, who faced allegations under legislation designed to protect public property. The case’s trajectory—from initial complaint through court-ordered investigation to ultimate closure due to lack of evidence—illustrates the complexities of prosecuting defacement cases, particularly when physical evidence deteriorates or becomes unavailable over time.
Broader Legal Implications
The outcome where court clears Kejriwal also raises questions about evidence preservation and timely investigation in defacement cases. The inability to examine crucial digital evidence due to damaged storage media, coupled with the failure to trace the printing press, highlights challenges in gathering and maintaining evidence in cases involving temporary installations like political hoardings. The case demonstrates how investigative delays and evidence degradation can ultimately prevent successful prosecution, even when courts initially find allegations merit investigation under applicable laws.
