Court upholds magistrate's order to frame charges against Delhi BJP MP

A Delhi sessions court has dismissed a plea filed by BJP MP Yogender Chandolia, challenging a magisterial court’s decision to frame charges against him in connection with a five-year-old case involving the alleged assault of a traffic constable on duty.

Chandolia, who represents the Karol Bagh constituency, had approached the sessions court after a magistrate in May this year ordered the framing of charges under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty), Section 356 (assault or criminal force in an attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person), Section 341 (wrongful restraint) and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

The case stems from an incident reported on 8 October 2020 in central Delhi’s Prasad Nagar area, where Chandolia allegedly assaulted a traffic constable who had been operating a crane as part of his official duties. The constable filed a complaint at the local police station the same day, alleging that the MP had obstructed him from carrying out his task and subsequently used force against him.

In his revision plea before the sessions court, Chandolia contended that the charges were neither legally sustainable nor supported by evidence, and that the magistrate’s order suffered from procedural irregularities.

However, in its 18 October order, the sessions court rejected his arguments, observing that the material on record, including witness statements and video evidence, provided sufficient ground to proceed with the trial.

“In the present case, when the complainant (constable) specifically stated that the accused pulled him down from the crane after obstructing his way, it clearly prima facie indicates that criminal force was used with the intent to cause fear or annoyance to the complainant,” the court said.

The court added that such an act was committed with the intent to deter a public servant from discharging his official duties, and therefore, the ingredients of Section 353 of the IPC were satisfied.

The sessions judge also noted that the first information report (FIR) contained a detailed account of the alleged assault and attempt to seize the constable’s phone.

“A perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant has specifically alleged that when he was recording the incident and the misbehaviour by the revisionist (Chandolia), the revisionist attempted to snatch his mobile phone. When the complainant tried to board his crane to escape from the revisionist, he was attempted to be pulled down, and when he handed over his phone to a labourer, Beera, an associate of the revisionist, snatched the phone,” the order stated.

On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that Sections 353 and 356 of the IPC were prima facie attracted in the case.

Rejecting the MP’s contention that the complainant’s version lacked corroboration, the judge held that the statements of other witnesses, including police personnel and labourers present at the scene, supported the allegations.

“A police official, even if a sole witness, is a competent witness, and the law does not prevent a police officer from being a credible or trustworthy witness,” the court observed. “Besides the complainant, other police officials and labourers, including Beera, have been examined by the investigating agency, and their statements on record support the complainant’s version.”

The court also took note of a video clip recorded on the complainant’s mobile phone, which was said to corroborate the sequence of events described in the FIR.

Addressing the defence’s argument that the FIR and witness statements contained inconsistencies, the sessions court said such contentions could only be examined during the trial, not at the stage of framing charges.

“The argument of the revisionist that the contents of the FIR and the statements of witnesses do not corroborate each other cannot be considered at the stage of framing charges. If there is any contradiction, the same can be highlighted during the trial by the revisionist after recording evidence,” the order stated.

The court further dismissed Chandolia’s objections regarding the alleged absence of independent witnesses, non-recovery of CCTV footage, and the lack of medical evidence or injury report. It said these issues did not undermine the prosecution’s case at this preliminary stage.

“Chandolia’s arguments regarding the need for independent corroboration, the non-collection of CCTV footage, the absence of injury or medical report of the complainant cannot assist his case,” the court said.

Finding no procedural or substantive fault in the magistrate’s decision, the sessions court concluded that the revision petition lacked merit.

“Consequently, no illegality, impropriety, incorrectness, irregularity or arbitrariness is found in the order, and therefore, the revision petition is meritless. It is dismissed,” the order stated.

With the dismissal of the revision plea, the earlier order framing charges against Chandolia stands confirmed, and the case will now proceed to trial before the magisterial court.