New Delhi [India], June 5 : The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday declined cognisance of the charge sheet of the Delhi police against Congress leader and former MP Udit Raj as the court noted no evidence regarding his identity.
He is not seen in the video produced by the Delhi Police regarding a protest outside the residence of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal at Feroz Shah Road. The protest was organised on January 20, 2025. An FIR was registered at the police station on Parliament Street. It was alleged that Udit Raj led the protest.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal refused to take cognisance of the charge sheet filed against him.
While declining cognisance, the court noted that there is no evidence on record regarding the identity of the accused. Despite the fact that the incident in question was filmed by the police officials, the accused cannot be seen in the entire video.
"In view of this, the court is of the considered opinion that there is insufficient ground for taking cognisance of the offence punishable under section 223 Bhartiya Nagrik Sanhita (BNS). No other offence appears to have been made out from the charge-sheet. Accordingly, cognisance in the present case is declined," ACJM Neha Mittal said in the order passed on June 5.
Delhi police filed a charge sheet against Udit Raj for an offence punishable under section 223(a)/3(5) BNS on the allegations that on January 20, 2025, a crowd of 30-35 people under his leadership were raising slogans in front of the house of former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, due to which Firoz Shah Road started getting jammed and inconvenience was caused to the commuters.
The police stated that they were holding banners. They further stated that the protesters were informed by the senior officers through a loudhailer about the promulgation of an order under Section 163 BNSS and the applicability of the Model Code of Conduct.
The charge sheet said they were warned against continuing with their protest, but they kept on demanding Rs.18,000 per month salary, just like other religious heads.
The court said that nothing on record shows that the accused knew of the order issued by the concerned ACP.
The court observed, "It has been vaguely averred in the complaint that the accused kept on raising the slogans despite announcement on loudhailer regarding the imposition of Section 163 BNSS by senior police officers."
"However, no such police officer has been named in the entire charge-sheet who apparently made the announcement, nor their statement under Section 180 BNSS has been recorded," the court noted in the order.
The court said that there is nothing on record to show that the warning was brought to the knowledge of accused.
It said, "Further, in the video recording of the incident placed on record, no such warning can be heard. No banners can be seen in the video regarding the warning about the imposition of Section 163 BNSS/ Sec 144 CrPC in the area. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the order dated on 29.1.2024 under Section 163 BNSS was brought to the notice of the accused and other protesters," the court said.