shadow

A Delhi court has dismissed a plea seeking registration of an FIR against senior Delhi Police officers and NDMC officials in a corruption complaint observing that “courts are not a place where complainants can be allowed to experiment” and have a roving inquiry against someone with hidden agendas.

The application was filed by a street vendor who claimed that he could not “secure a permanent vending site due to vested interest of officials at NDMC who kept on avoiding it on one pretext or the other”.

The applicant stated that “NDMC officials resorted to corruption by abusing their power and position and started secretly issuing permission letters for vending from July 2019 onwards after obtaining illegal gratifications, varying from Rs 2 Lakh to Rs 5 Lakh per person depending upon the vending site, in connivance with market mafias and other middle men”.

The applicant thereafter claimed that the “police also did not take any action and closed the case without even recording the statement of anybody after he had filed a complaint to the police”.

The application has been filed against four public servants namely SHO of the PS Connaught Place; DCP of the concerned area; one Ex-Director of Enforcement NDMC and; Ex-Joint Director, Enforcement, NDMC.

Special judge Dig Vinay Singh, while dismissing the complaint on September 10, stated that there is no proof or even strong suspicion that any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or any other offence under IPC was committed.

“Setting law into motion on such an application against public servants would be nothing but causing unnecessary harassment. Courts are not a place where complainants can be allowed to experiment and have a roving enquiry against someone, that too with hidden agendas and possible ulterior motives,” the court stated.

The court stated that the application is “absolutely vague, containing unnecessary details and not disclosing any specific offence on which any such direction for registration of FIR or taking cognizance can be passed”.

The court said that except for making “wild and bare allegations of general nature”, the applicant has not put forth any specific incident regarding demand or acceptance of bribes by any public servant.

“The entire allegations are based on conjunctures & surmises and the application/complaint seems to be derived due to non-allocation of permanent vending site to the applicant and therefore personal vendetta,” the court said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *