Delhi HC dismisses 16 Dec rape protester’s petition
10 May 2013 8:05 AM IST
The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed two petitions, one seeking the quashing of the FIR registered against seven people (a total of eight have been named in the FIR) in the death of Delhi police constable Subhash Tomar during an anti-rape protests at India Gate in December, 2012 and another seeking a transfer of the probe into the death of constable Subhash Tomar from the crime branch of the Delhi police to the CBI.
Justice G P Mittal, turned down the plea of seven of the eight protestors named in the FIR saying, 'The FIR, at this stage, cannot be quashed and no further directions are needed in the writ petition...The same is accordingly dismissed.' They were booked booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The High Court took note of the submission of additional solicitor general (ASG) that there is no material that connects the petitioners to the offence of causing death of constable Subhash Tomar and so the prosecution should not chargesheet them under the section of murder.
The ASG, however, had told the court that there is ample evidence through the statement of witnesses, CCTV coverage and other material to show the offences of damage to public property, obstruction to the public servants in discharge of their duties, causing injuries to the public servants etc against them.
'It is obvious that the Parliament realised the need for inserting the fundamental duties as a part of the Indian Constitution and required every citizen of India to adhere to those duties. .....The restriction placed on a fundamental right would have to be examined with reference to the concept of fundamental duties and non-interference with the liberty of others. Therefore, a restriction on the right to assemble and raise protest should also be examined on similar parameters and values. In other words, when you assert your right, you must respect the freedom of others. Besides imposition of a restriction by the State, non-interference with the liberties of others is an essential condition for assertion of the right to freedom of speech and expression,' the court observed.
On the petition for transfering the case to the CBI, the court said, 'No material has been placed on record by the petitioner which would compel the court to transfer the investigation from the crime branch to the CBI.'
It further said that the job of the investigating agency in the case is only to identify the people who were responsible for committing the offences.
'Thus, there is no ground to come to the conclusion that the CBI is better equipped to identify the culprits than the crime branch or that the crime branch of Delhi police has got any motive to falsely implicate any person,' it said.
Justice G P Mittal, turned down the plea of seven of the eight protestors named in the FIR saying, 'The FIR, at this stage, cannot be quashed and no further directions are needed in the writ petition...The same is accordingly dismissed.' They were booked booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The High Court took note of the submission of additional solicitor general (ASG) that there is no material that connects the petitioners to the offence of causing death of constable Subhash Tomar and so the prosecution should not chargesheet them under the section of murder.
The ASG, however, had told the court that there is ample evidence through the statement of witnesses, CCTV coverage and other material to show the offences of damage to public property, obstruction to the public servants in discharge of their duties, causing injuries to the public servants etc against them.
'It is obvious that the Parliament realised the need for inserting the fundamental duties as a part of the Indian Constitution and required every citizen of India to adhere to those duties. .....The restriction placed on a fundamental right would have to be examined with reference to the concept of fundamental duties and non-interference with the liberty of others. Therefore, a restriction on the right to assemble and raise protest should also be examined on similar parameters and values. In other words, when you assert your right, you must respect the freedom of others. Besides imposition of a restriction by the State, non-interference with the liberties of others is an essential condition for assertion of the right to freedom of speech and expression,' the court observed.
On the petition for transfering the case to the CBI, the court said, 'No material has been placed on record by the petitioner which would compel the court to transfer the investigation from the crime branch to the CBI.'
It further said that the job of the investigating agency in the case is only to identify the people who were responsible for committing the offences.
'Thus, there is no ground to come to the conclusion that the CBI is better equipped to identify the culprits than the crime branch or that the crime branch of Delhi police has got any motive to falsely implicate any person,' it said.
Next Story
