The judge said that “before any stringent remarks could be made upon the casual attitude of the investigating agency qua the directions of this court, this court is constrained to bring it to the notice of Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police with respect to the state of affairs and non-adequate explanation on the part of the investigating agency.” The judge further noted that if the aid of any ministry was required, Delhi Police was enough equipped and “will not be shy to take resort to.”Out of the 10 dates above, the judge appended order-sheets of March 20 and April 8, 2025 and April 4, 2024 wherein the directions for the further investigation were laid down by by the court for the perusal of Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police and Joint Commissioner, Northern Range, saying “that will suffice.””It is also impressed upon the investigating agency to at least procure the relevant material which must be the part of the charge sheet wherein the reasonable time limit had already been granted, as has been directed by this court, and in the present case, it is pending from March 20, 2024 i.e. almost an year. In the case, the Delhi Police fails to investigate or there is any impediment, same be reported to this court,” the judge said.The judge also sought the acknowledgment of receipt of today’s order-sheet from the Office of Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police.The judge posted the matter for further arguments on charge and status report from the Joint Commissioner, Northern Range on July 7.A special court on March 7 dismissed his plea against the summons issued to him for making “objectionable statements” and violating the model code of conduct in 2020.Special judge Jitendra Singh observed the Election Commission was under a constitutional obligation to prevent the candidates from indulging in “vitriolic vituperation with impunity, vitiating and contaminating the atmosphere for free and fair election.”The judge said he was in complete agreement with the magisterial court that the complaint filed by the returning officer was sufficient to take cognisance of the offence under Section 125 (promoting enmity between classes in connection with election) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act.Mishra’s statements, the court said, appeared to be “a brazen attempt to promote enmity on the grounds of religion by way of indirectly referring to a country which unfortunately in common parlance is often used to denote the members of a particular religion.”
Source link
