The Hindu : New Delhi News : ‘Can withdraw case against Sikh leader’

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Mar 14, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

‘Can withdraw case against Sikh leader’

Staff Reporter

Delhi High Court upholds trial court order

“Allowed to close the case in the larger public interest”
Mother of the victim challenged the lower court order

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday upheld an order of a trial court here allowing the prosecution to withdraw a case of murder and attempt to murder against local Sikh Congress leader Harcharan Singh Josh connected with an anti-Sikh riot at Sabzi Mandi in North Delhi on November 1, 1984.

The Capital had witnessed widespread rioting against the Sikh community in the wake of the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984. The Delhi High Court order came on a revision petition filed by Jamuna Devi, mother of a person killed in the rioting, Chandra Bhan.

The trial court had allowed the prosecution to withdraw the case “in the larger public interest”.

Allowing the reasoning of the trial court for the order, the High Court said no public interest would be served by allowing the prosecution to go ahead with the case as it would re-open healed wounds and create bad blood between two sections of society. In her complaint, Jamuna Devi had alleged that a bullet fired from Mr. Josh’s residence in the Sabzi Mandi area of North Delhi had hit her son Chandra Bhan and he had died on the spot on November 1, 1984.

The Delhi police had chargesheeted Mr. Josh on March 20, 1989, under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt-to-murder). Thereafter a Metropolitan Magistrate had summoned Mr. Josh on April 31, 1989.

However, the city police later filed a closure report in the court seeking its permission to close the case.

On July 5, 1989, the court had allowed the prosecution to withdraw the case.

Then the woman had filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the lower court’s permission to the prosecution to withdraw the case.

The High Court had rejected the lower court’s order. Thereafter the prosecution had gone in an appeal against the High Court order in the Supreme Court which had upheld the High Court order.

Thereafter the case had gone back to the lower court. After conducting the proceedings for a few months, the lower court had once again allowed the prosecution to close the case. The woman had then once again moved the High Court.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi