New Delhi [India], October 27 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice on pleas filed by a woman journalist challenging an FIR registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on a complaint by ACP Vivek Bhagat over alleged caste-related remarks during a protest, but refused to stay the investigation.
Justice Mini Pushkarna said the court would consider the pleas on merits after receiving the Delhi Police’s response and listed the matter for final hearing on November 17.
“I will simply issue notice. I will hear it on merits once [police] reply is there. Investigation will continue,” the court observed.
Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for the journalist, urged the court to pass a strong interim order staying the investigation. However, the court declined to grant the relief at this stage.
The FIR was registered at Parliament Street police station following Bhagat’s complaint over alleged caste-related remarks during a protest at Buta Singh Chowk on October 3.
Rosy, an independent journalist, has separately accused ACP Vivek Bhagat of sexual assault during the incident. In her petition, she has alleged that the FIR against her was lodged in retaliation for her complaint against the ACP and has denied making the casteist remarks attributed to her.
She has sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, besides interim protection against arrest and other coercive action. The male journalist accompanying her has also approached the High Court.
According to the plea, she lodged a complaint against Bhagat on October 3, alleging sexual assault while covering the protest. Her complaint was subsequently transferred to the Crime Branch for inquiry.
She has contended that despite cooperating with the inquiry and seeking preservation of CCTV footage and police body-camera recordings, no FIR had been registered on her complaint when the case against her was lodged.
The FIR lodged by ACP Vivek Bhagat invokes Sections 221, 356(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Rosy has questioned the applicability of the invoked provisions and alleged that the proceedings were initiated to intimidate her and discourage her from pursuing her complaint against the ACP. The allegations remain contested, and the High Court is yet to examine the matter on merits. (ANI)
Related reading
