Delhi Court Rejects Ratna Singh's Plea for FIR Over Alleged Restraint
Saket Court dismissed Ratna Singh's plea to file an FIR against police for alleged wrongful confinement, citing lack of specific officer names.
A Delhi court has dismissed an application filed by Ratna Singh, the legal affairs head of the Campaign for Judicial Parity (CJP), seeking the registration of an FIR against police personnel. Singh had alleged that she was wrongfully confined and prevented from attending a scheduled protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
The Saket Court, presided over by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Abhinav Pandey, ruled that the application was not maintainable. The court pointed out significant procedural lapses, noting that the plea was not supported by a mandatory affidavit and failed to name any specific public servant responsible for the alleged actions.
Procedural Lapses Lead to Dismissal
In his ruling, CJM Pandey highlighted that the application failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Because no specific officer was identified in the complaint, the court stated it was impossible to determine which "Officer Superior" should be directed to provide a status report.
The court also addressed Singh's alternative request for a Non-Cognisable Report (NCR). The judge noted a contradiction in the legal arguments: the allegations made—wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement—fall under Sections 126 and 127 of the BNS, 2023, which are cognisable offences. Therefore, seeking an NCR for crimes that are inherently cognisable was deemed legally inconsistent.
"This Court is of the opinion that the present application is not even prima facie maintainable in the present form and accordingly stands dismissed. It being amply clear that the complaint made 'on oath' being the mandatory requirement of this provision, the present application... is also not maintainable without an affidavit," CJM Pandey stated.
The Allegations of Wrongful Confinement
The incident reportedly took place on October 10. According to the application filed by Singh, a practising advocate, she was traveling toward the Supreme Court to join fellow lawyers in a protest against the CEC. She was accompanied by two other advocates at the time.
The plea detailed the following sequence of events:
- While Singh was sitting in a car near her residence with advocate Tara Narula, her vehicle was allegedly blocked from both the front and the rear by two other cars.
- Police personnel remained outside the vehicle during this period.
- Singh alleged that she was prevented from moving and that officers failed to provide any legal justification for the restriction, despite her repeated requests.
The application raised serious concerns regarding Singh's personal liberty and safety, calling for urgent judicial intervention to examine the conduct of the police authorities involved.
Context of the Protest
The legal dispute arises amidst ongoing demonstrations by members of the legal fraternity against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. These protests have sparked broader discussions regarding the rights of lawyers to assemble and express their views, as well as the boundaries of police authority in regulating public demonstrations and maintaining order.