Delhi Court Upholds Charges Against BJP MP Yogender Chandolia for Assaulting Traffic Constable

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

The case arose from an incident on October 8, 2020, in central Delhi’s Prasad Nagar area, where Chandolia allegedly assaulted a traffic constable who was operating a crane as part of his official duties. The constable lodged a complaint the same day, alleging that the MP obstructed him from carrying out his duty and used force against him.

In his revision plea, Chandolia argued that the charges were unsustainable and unsupported by evidence, and that the magistrate’s order suffered from procedural irregularities. However, the sessions court, in its order dated October 18, rejected his contentions and held that there was sufficient material on record to proceed with the trial.

“The complainant (constable) specifically stated that the accused pulled him down from the crane after obstructing his way, which clearly prima facie indicates that criminal force was used with the intent to cause fear or annoyance,” the Court observed, adding that such conduct fell within the ambit of Section 353 IPC.

The Court also noted that the FIR provided a detailed account of the alleged assault and attempt to seize the constable’s mobile phone. According to the FIR, when the constable began recording the incident, Chandolia allegedly tried to snatch his phone. When the constable handed over the phone to a labourer named Beera, an associate of the MP allegedly took it away.

Observing that the statements of other witnesses, including police personnel and labourers present at the scene, supported the complainant’s version, the court held that the lack of independent witnesses, CCTV footage, or a medical report did not weaken the prosecution’s case at this stage.

“A police official, even if a sole witness, is a competent witness, and the law does not prevent a police officer from being credible or trustworthy,” the Court said, noting that the video clip recorded by the complainant corroborated the allegations.

The Court further clarified that inconsistencies or contradictions between the FIR and witness statements could only be examined during the trial, not at the stage of framing charges.

Rejecting all procedural and evidentiary objections raised by the MP, the sessions judge concluded: “No illegality, impropriety, incorrectness, irregularity, or arbitrariness is found in the order. The revision petition is meritless and stands dismissed.”

With the dismissal of Chandolia’s plea, the earlier order framing charges remains in effect, and the case will now proceed to trial before the magisterial court.