Read Time: 06 minutes
Kalawati contended “I am a woman from a backward caste and I believe that my daughter was murdered by Arvind Kejriwal, Kumar Vishwas, Vandana, Kuldeep Pawar, Gaurav, Pankaj, and others because we are from a backward caste and Arvind Kejriwal and others gained a political advantage from my daughter's death".
(Mai ek anya pichda warg ki mahila hun aur mujhe yakeen hai ki meri beti ki hatya Arvind Kejriwal, Kumar Vishwas, Vandana, Kuldeep Pawar, Gaurav, Pankaj aadi logon ne isliye karwayi ki hum pichde warg se aate hain aur meri beti ki mrityu se Arvind Kejriwal aadi logon ko rajneetik fayda mila)”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a petition filed by a mother Kalawati, aged 60, claiming that her daughter, Santosh Koli, was allegedly murdered by Arvind Kejriwal for political benefit. However, the bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the complaint merely suggested a conspiracy to murder Kalawati’s daughter but these claims were “essentially based on her hunch and has no basis”.
Advocate Manmohan Singh, representing Kalawati, stated that on June 30, 2013, while Santosh Koli was riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle driven by Gaurav en route to a party meeting in Kausambi, Ghaziabad, an unidentified vehicle collided with the motorcycle, causing severe injuries to Koli and igniting the motorcycle. Koli was initially admitted to Yashoda Hospital in Kausambi, Ghaziabad, and later transferred to Fortis Hospital, Gurgaon, where she succumbed to her injuries on August 7, 2013.
Kalawati had approached the high court challenging the order of the trial court.
The trial court refused Kalawati’s application to register an FIR in Delhi. The trial court observed that since an FIR had already been registered and further investigation ordered, the law did not permit the registration of a second FIR for the same incident.
The high court acknowledged that Kalawati filed a protest petition, which was accepted on June 28, 2019, and the court directed further investigation. Since an FIR had already been registered and further investigation ordered, the law did not permit the registration of a second FIR for the same incident. Additionally, the entire incident occurred in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and no part of it fell under the jurisdiction of Delhi.
The high court favored the opinion of the trial court that no new FIR could be registered at Police Station Nand Nagari, Delhi.
The high court opined that the assertions made by Kalawati only contained general assertions regarding offenses under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Kalawati had failed to provide any facts to substantiate the application of these provisions. There were no allegations of caste-based abuse or humiliation, which are essential elements of offenses under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Thus, no offense under Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, had been made out.
The high court further noted that Kalawati’s allegations do not fall under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. It was reiterated that for Section 3(2)(v) to apply, the offense must be committed due to the victim’s membership in the SC/ST community. Simply belonging to the SC/ST community does not suffice to invoke the Act.
The high court therefore remarked that the trial court correctly rejected her application as no offence was established.
For Petitioner: Advocates Manmohan Singh and Sourabh Singh Tomar For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Satinder Singh Bawa with Advocate Sunpreet SinghCase Title: Kalawati v The State (2024:DHC:7775)
Please Login or Register
