D.K Chopra vs Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2020 Latest Caselaw 839 Del

$~40
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                     Judgment delivered on: 07.02.2020
        W.P.(CRL) 393/2020.
        D.K.CHOPRA                                         ..... Petitioner
                               Through       Petitioner in person.
                               versus
        NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                ..... Respondents
                               Through       Mr. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Ld.
                                             ASC with Mr. Shivam
                                             Soharan & Mr. Hitesh Vali,
                                             Advocates.
                                             SI Prem Kumar: PS Mehrauli
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
                  JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J.(Oral)

1. Vide the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for deferring the

elections of Mehrauli Vidhan Sabha to be held on 08.02.2020 and

direction to the CBI to hold enquiry for purchase and sale of

tickets in crores and removal of SHO PS Mehrauli.

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was given

appropriate permission bearing no. 10B/south/R/ACP/

Permission/SD dated 21st January, 2020 for conducting rally on

5th February, 2020 at 3.00 p.m. from Andheri Mor till Kallu Ram

Chowk, followed by meeting from 5.00 p.m. till 9.00 p.m. at

Kallu Ram Chowk, Mehrauli. It is further submitted that based

on the said permission, petitioner got published banners, posters

and pamphlets and thereby spent around Rs. 60,000/- on its

distribution, dissemination, tent arrangements and for tea and

food etc. It is further submitted that illegally, the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi removed the banner of the said meeting

having catchy phrase that 'Croro ki ticket Mehrauli Vidhan

Sabha mai lene walo ko moh tor jawab de' at late night on 4th

February, 2020 though petitioner was permitted to put forth

banners for the said purpose. It is further submitted that when

rally began at 3.00 p.m. from Andheri Mor, some persons

illegally started wrongfully restraining, harassing and threatening

the petitioner, supporters of the petitioners and public and these

persons were identified as belonging to congress Party and were

hand in glove with SHO Mehrauli Ved Prakash. The matter was

reported to police three times but police and Authorized

Election Officers failed to enforce law and order. Police Election

Observer-Raja Srivastav scolded the petitioner for calling him

with different numbers. Police officials failed to register any

case despite taking complaint from petitioner. SHO PS Mehrauli

Sh. Ved Prakash being hand in glove with Congress, allowed the

party to conduct meeting at the same time and place at Kallu

Ram Chowk. It is further submitted that SHO PS Mehrauli had

informed the petitioner that SDM has made the last minute

changes. However, SDM has denied any such proposal/changes.

Thereafter, the matter was again immediately informed to the

police officials at 100 no. However no action was taken. The

petitioner has, therefore, prayed that elections for Vidhan Sabha

scheduled for 08.02.2020 be deferred and he be allowed to hold

rally from 5.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on 07.02.2020 at Kallu Ram

Chowk and CBI inquiry be ordered into sale and purchase of

tickets and SHO PS Mehrauli be removed from his present

posting.

3. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the state has opposed the

writ petition. He has submitted that there is no reason to interfere

in the ongoing election process as nothing wrong was committed

by the Police authority or by officials on Election duty and the

present writ petition, therefore, be dismissed.

4. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the

entire material placed on record.

5. So far as prayer of the petitioner regarding permission to

organize meeting at Kallu Ram Chowk from 5 pm till 9 p.m. on

7th February, 2020 and deferring of the election of Mehrauli

constituency is concerned, this court is of the view that since

campaigning has already come to an end on 06.02.2020 i.e.

Yesterday, it will not be in the interest of justice to intervene or

interfere in the elections process. It is a settled law that court

must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining

any election dispute. The court must guard against any attempt at

retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election

proceedings. In Election Commission of India v. Ashok

Kumar & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 216, it was held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court that the election process includes all the steps and

entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of

the election till date of declaration of result. In the absence of

any cogent material on record, there are no grounds to interfere in

the election process or defer the election.

6. Petitioner has further prayed that directions be issued to

the CBI to hold enquiry for purchase and sale of ticket in crores

and SHO PS Mehrauli be removed from service for wrongfully

restraining entry of the petitioner and his supporters at Kallu

Ram Chowk for holding meeting despite permission. This court

is, however, of the view that if petitioner has any grievance

regarding sale of tickets or against SHO, he can approach the

higher authorities in the Police or Ld. MM for redressal of the

same. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sakiri Vasu vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein Hon'ble

Supreme court has held as under:-

11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application

under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

7. In view of above law, this court is of the view that

petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy to approach Ld.

MM for redressal of his grievance. The relief sought by the

petitioner, therefore, cannot be granted by this court. The writ

petition is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of

accordingly.

BRIJESH SETHI, J FEBRUARY 7, 2020 AK