New Delhi :A court here today issued notice to Delhi Police on a revision petition challenging an order dismissing a criminal complaint seeking registration of FIR against Union Minister V K Singh for his alleged “dog” remarks in the aftermath of burning of two Dalit children in Haryana.
Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Gupta admitted the revision petition filed by an advocate and fixed the matter for final arguments on December 16.
The court has also called for trial court record in the matter.
The revision petition was filed yesterday by complainant, advocate Satya Prakash Gautam, who has challenged the trial court’s order alleging that magistrate “has only desperately tried to shield the proposed accused under various pretexts including those not even on record, like the intention of the proposed accused while making impugned statements which were the basis of filing the present complaint.”
“It is clear…that the Metropolitan Magistrate has tried to step into the shoes of the counsel of the proposed accused to defend him. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone,” he has alleged.
The magisterial court had on December 7 dismissed his plea observing that no criminal offence was “ex-facie” made out against the former Army chief.
The court had said that for no reason Singh’s statement can be seen as a remark made to demean any caste or creed and it does not see the comment as an “analogy drawn between the dog (as an animal) and humans (of a caste or creed)”.
The complainant had alleged that Singh, the Minister of State for External Affairs, had hurt the sentiments of the Dalit community with such remarks.
Singh had kicked up a storm with his alleged remarks in connection with the Faridabad incident, that the government cannot be blamed if anyone throws a stone at a dog.
The court had on October 29 directed the police to file an action taken report (ATR) on the complaint seeking lodging of FIR against Singh under provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Information Technology Act and IPC.
The police, in its ATR, had earlier told the court that Singh had not made any “specific derogatory and humiliating statement” warranting his prosecution on the complaint for his alleged “dog” remark.
The report had said that no cognisable offence was made out against Singh for his alleged remarks on October 21.