Delhi Court Refuses To Take Cognisance Against Udit Raj In Protest Case Outside Kejriwal's Residence

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of Rouse Avenue Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish that Raj was aware of the prohibitory order allegedly issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The case pertains to a protest led by Raj on January 20, demanding monthly honorariums for Buddhist monks and priests serving in Guru Ravidas and Valmiki temples. The Delhi Police alleged that the demonstration led to traffic congestion and inconvenience to commuters.

According to the police, protestors were informed about the prohibitory order and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct through loudspeaker announcements. However, the Court found these claims unsubstantiated.

“In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the accused had knowledge of the order issued by the concerned ACP. It has been vaguely averred in the complaint that the accused kept on raising slogans despite announcements on a loudhailer regarding the imposition of Section 163 BNSS,” the Court noted.

The Court pointed out that no police officer was specifically named in the chargesheet as having made such an announcement, nor were their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that the video footage submitted by the police did not contain any audible warning or announcement.

Significantly, the Court also found no clear evidence to establish Raj’s presence in the video footage. “It is also pertinent to note that there is no evidence on record regarding the identity of the accused. Despite the fact that the incident in question was videographed by police officials, the accused cannot be seen in the entire video,” the Court said.

Concluding that no prima facie case was made out against Raj under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Court stated: “In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that there does not exist sufficient ground for taking cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 223 BNS. No other offence appears to have been made out from the chargesheet. Accordingly, cognisance in the present case is declined.”