Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vrinda Kumari of the Saket District Court recently dismissed an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) filed by Dal Chand Kapil, seeking a police investigation against Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Gopal Rai and Prakash Jarwal, and two others in connection with the Delhi Assembly Elections 2020.

The complainant Dal Chand Kapil is a member of the SC Community who ran for Legislative Assembly from the Deoli (SC) Assembly constituency from 2015 to 2020, and Prakash Jarwal also ran in these elections from the Deoli (SC) Assembly constituency during the same period. Kapil alleged that even though Jarwal was not eligible to contest the above-said elections from the said Assembly Constituency, as it was reserved for SC Community, he was made a candidate under the leadership of Arvind Kejriwal and Gopal Rai.

Kapil also claimed that Jarwal was deliberately chosen for the Deoli (SC) Assembly constituency to prevent any member of the SC Community from being elected from the "reserved constituency". It is further alleged that Jarwal is a member of the Bairwa/Berwa Community, which falls under the OBC category in Delhi. It is also alleged that the election of Jarwal from that constituency reduced the representation of the SC Community in the Delhi Assembly by one seat.

Kapil further alleged that Jarwal’s false and forged SC Certificate was used to misinform and cheat the Returning Officer (RO)/other Election Commission of India (ECI) officials and based on this false document, the RO and other ECI Officials were forced to use their legal authority in accepting his nomination papers, allowing him to contest from the Delhi constituency reserved for the SC Community. He further contended that Kejriwal and Rai are jointly and severally liable for the conspiracy to reduce SC representation in the Delhi Assembly by giving a “non-SC candidate” Jarwal, AAP party ticket from the aforesaid constituency.

Kapil also submitted that he had objected to Jarwal’s nomination on the day of scrutiny but the RO did not take any action. Thereafter, he also lodged a written complaint on February 3, 2020, to the RO. He also made a complaint in April 2021 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) on the false and forged SC Certificate but no FIR was registered.

He submitted that the police officer involved was liable under Section 4 of the SC & ST Act and Rule 5(1) of the SC & ST Rules 1995 for failing to register the FIR. Furthermore, it is submitted that offenses punishable under Sections 3 (1)(q), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(vii) of the SC & ST Act, 1989, as well as Sections 420,468,471,120B, have been sought to be invoked against the AAP leaders and the RO  has also been sought to be charged under sections 166, 167, 190, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, and 217 IPC.

Court noted that the above-mentioned caste certificate contents indicate that the caste certificate was issued in favor of Jarwal by the SDM concerned under the category of such SC / ST person who had migrated from another State / UT Administration.

ASJ Kumari relied on the judicial notice of directions dated February 22, 2018, of the Government of India (Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment) which prescribed the Authority of all State Governments / UT Administrations to issue an SC/ ST certificate to a person who has migrated from another State on the production of the genuine certificate issued to his / her father by the prescribed Authority of the State of the father's origin.

Taking note of the directions of the GOI, the court stated that, “the Court is unable to take a prima facie view that the SC Certificate dated 11.05.2006 is a forged or false document or that it was prepared by furnishing a false information.”

 “No offence punishable under Sections 420/465/468/471 IPC is made out. It also appears that the complainant has taken the plea of conspiracy to somehow bring the present case into the sphere of the scheduled offence u/s 120B IPC. Consequently, no offence punishable u/s 3(2)(v)(va) & (vii) of the SC & ST Act is made out,” the court added.

The court noted that in the Election Petition filed before the High Court of Delhi, Kapil sought to declare the election of  Jarwal from the Deoli (SC) Assembly constituency held on February 8, 2020 void and prayed for fresh elections in this constituency and the case is still pending before the High Court.

The court stated that the current case clearly falls under the purview of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which the complainant has already invoked in the year 2020.

“Even if it is assumed at this stage (even though the issue is still sub-judice before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi) that Jarwal, being a person of SC/ST Community in Rajasthan but of OBC Community in Delhi was not eligible to contest Assembly Election from the reserved assembly constituency in Delhi, the act of his contesting the Delhi State Assembly Election 2020 from such reserved seat does not fall within the meaning ‘atrocity’ as defined in Section 2(a) r/w Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST Act, 1989,” the court noted.

The court stated that Kapil himself has contested Delhi Assembly Elections from the Deoli (SC) Assembly constituency in the years 2015 and 2020. The court opined that “The complainant's attempt to bring the subject matter of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 within the ambit of the SC & ST Act, 1989 is an abuse of process.”

Conclusively, the court held that the present complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not reveal the commission of any cognizable offence and there is no reason to direct the registration of an FIR or to take cognizance.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application under S. 156(3) CrPC with a cost of Rs. 1000 which is to be deposited in the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA).

Case Title: Dal Chand Kapil v. State and Ors.