New Delhi: On November 2, the Delhi High Court will hear a plea registered by CPI(M) head Brinda Karat challenging a trial court order which had overlooked her petition looking for registration of FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma over their alleged hatred discourse during the mobs that broke out in the Delhi Riots prior this year.
The petition, registered through advocates Tara Narula, Aparajita Sinha, and Adit S Pujari, was registered under the steady gaze of an individual judge authority bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna who requested that the two parties to register the arrangement of decisions they would depend on and posted the issues for an additional hearing on November 2.
Karat, in her appeal, challenged the order passed by the trial court on August 26 overlooking her petition looking for registration of FIR against the two leaders in light of the fact that the requisite approval from the competent officials, the central government, was not gotten.
Throughout the brief hearing, advocate Siddharth Aggarwal showing up for Karat educated the court that the lower court kept the issue pending for around nine months and later dismissed the same without getting into the benefits of this case.
CPI(M) heads Brinda Karat and KM Tewari had registered the complaint under the steady gaze of the trial court looking for a course to the Parliament Street Police Station to file an FIR against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma.
Nonetheless, the trial court stated that the complaint was not feasible without earlier approval.
The two Left heads stated in their petition: “The Petitioners/Complainants in the present case, already aggrieved by the failure of the Police to register an FIR for the commission of cognizable offenses amounting to hate speech, have now been relegated by the Ld. ACMM to seek sanction from the State/Centre, a sanction which is a statutory requirement for taking cognizance, not the investigation.”
The petition further stated: “The Complainant is effectively being asked to step into the shoes of the investigating agency and make a case for prosecution before the Sanctioning Agency. Furthermore, any Application for Sanction by the complainant at this stage would be without the benefit of materials and evidence obtained during the investigation.”
