Home Legal News FIR for Hate Speech Against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma; Brinda Karat, KM Tiwari Move Delhi HC Against Trial Court’s Refusal to Register FIR

FIR for Hate Speech Against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma; Brinda Karat, KM Tiwari Move Delhi HC Against Trial Court’s Refusal to Register FIR

by Shreya
Anurag Thakur Parvesh Verma Delhi Riots FIR
CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat claimed in the Delhi High Court on Thursday that a cognisable offence is made out against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and his BJP colleague and MP Pravesh Verma and an FIR should be lodged against them for their alleged hate speeches in relation to anti-CAA protest at Shaheen Bagh.

Karat and Tiwari had filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate seeking a direction to the Parliament Street Police Station to register an FIR against Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma for the commission of offences under Sections 153A/153B/295A/298/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Karat has challenged a trial court’s August 26 order dismissing her plea seeking lodging of FIR against the two leaders on the grounds that the requisite sanction from the competent authority, the central government, was not obtained.

Appearing for Karat and Tiwari, Advocate Siddharth Agarwal argued that the ACMM wrongly dismissed the matter at the outset.

Advertisements
Projectvala assignment service updated

Also Read: Delhi Court Orders To Provide Security To JNU Student Leader Umar Khalid In Prison

He contended that the ACMM’s reliance on Anil Kumar & ors v. MK Aiyappa and Anr was misplaced as the case specifically referred only to requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“Section 196(3) CrPC has no application at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC“, Agarwal argued.

He also argued at length on the maintainability of the present plea under Section 482 CrPC.

Justice Yogesh Khanna, after hearing the submissions, asked the counsel for Karat and Delhi Police to file relevant judgements in support of their contentions.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on November 2.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

× Chat with us on WhatsApp