Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chairperson, Swati Maliwal has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the framing of charges against her by the trial court for allegedly "abusing her official position" and "illegally appointing various acquaintances" including Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) workers in DCW between August 2015 and 2016.

Maliwal has filed the criminal revision petition through Advocate Chirag Madan. She has sought direction to quash the charges which have been framed by the Trial Court and as an interim relief, she has sought a stay on the order. 

The matter is listed for hearing tomorrow i.e. March 10, before the bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.

Notably, on December 8, a Delhi Court framed charges against Maliwal and three others namely, Promila Gupta, Sarika Chaudhary, and Farheen Malick under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court had observed, “A strong suspicion does arise against all the four accused persons and the facts do disclose prima facie sufficient material to frame charges against all the four accused persons for offences u/S 120B of IPC r/w Sec. 13(1)(d)/13(2) of POC Act as well as for the substantive offence u/S 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(2) of POC Act. Charges be framed accordingly.”

The Special Judge had stated that merely because DCW was pursuing the Government to fill vacant positions which were not timely complied with by the government, it did not give any right to DCW to make arbitrary appointments.

“The above-mentioned facts do create a strong suspicion that recruitments to various posts were made during the impugned tenure of the accused persons for different remunerations in an arbitrary manner, violating all Rules & Regulations in which the near & dear ones were appointed and remunerations were given to them from public exchequer”, the court had added.

The counsel for the accused persons had argued that there was no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons and thus, charges under S.120B of IPC could not be framed against them.

To this, the court had stated that in the present case, the circumstances do prima facie strongly indicated such a conspiracy between the accused persons. “Even though, there are no express allegations in as many words against the accused persons as to their conspiracy mentioned in the charge sheet, indeed Sec. 120B of IPC has been invoked against them and the facts do indicate such a conspiracy”, the court had said.

On perusal of the minutes of meetings held on various dates from February 26, 2016, to August 9, 2016, by the DCW, wherein decisions of creation of posts/ appointments/ fixing and enhancing of remuneration were made, the court had said, “Several persons were appointed and the remuneration was arbitrarily increased, as also the minutes dated 01.03.2016 regarding the appointment of Mr. Dhal, to which all the four accused are signatories are enough to prima facie point to a strong suspicion that the appointments in question were made by the accused persons in agreement with each other”.

The case was registered on a complaint by former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Barkha Shukla Singh on August 11, 2016, before the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB). She alleged that several individuals, who are/were associated with AAP were appointed in DCW in violation of all Rules & Regulations, without publication of vacancies and as such granting pecuniary benefits to them. Thereafter based on the complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and an FIR was registered against the accused persons.

Case Title: Swati Maliwal v. State

Statue: The Indian Penal Code; The Prevention Of Corruption Act; The Code of Criminal Procedure