Court to hear arguments on plea against VK Singh on December 4

Further arguments on a criminal complaint filed against Minister of State for External Affairs VK Singh for his alleged “dog” remark would be heard by a Delhi court next month.

Metropolitan Magistrate Muneesh Garg put up the matter for December 4 as the lawyers in Karkardooma district courts were on a day-long strike today. The court was scheduled to pass order on the complaint seeking registration of FIR against Singh, but advocate Satya Prakash Gautam, who is the complainant in the matter, said he wanted to advance further arguments on the issue and sought a date due to the ongoing strike.

The lawyers of Karkardooma court are protesting the implementation of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, which takes away the jurisdiction of trial courts to try commercial disputes of over Rs one crore. The police, in its action taken report (ATR), had earlier told the court that the former army chief had not made any “specific derogatory and humiliating statement” warranting his prosecution on the complaint for his alleged “dog” remark.

It had said no cognisable offence was made out against Singh for his alleged remarks on October 21 in the wake of an incident in Faridabad where two kids of a Dalit family were allegedly burnt alive.

“In this regard, it is to submit that as per complaint, no specific derogatory and humiliating remarks are found as per law regarding Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes community. No cognisable offence was made out,” the ATR had said.

The court had on October 29 directed the police to file the ATR on the criminal complaint seeking lodging of FIR against Singh under provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Information Techology Act and the IPC. “Summon, try, punish and confiscate his entire property which the accused person had collected through unfair means by exploiting the religious feelings of innocent citizens, under appropriate sections SC/ST (POA) Act, IT Act and IPC,” the complaint by the advocate had said.