A city court on Tuesday ordered Delhi Police to file an FIR against former chief minister and AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal and others in a defacement of public property case. Additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal said one Shiv Kumar Saxena submitted visual evidence with the date and time indicating the illegal banners bore the names and photos of the accused persons, including Kejriwal.

Aside from Kejriwal, the court ordered the FIR against former MLA Gulab Singh and then Dwarka councilor Nitika Sharma, for installing “large-sized” banners.  “The seriousness of the offence...Can be gauged from the fact that it is not only an eyesore and public nuisance thereby destroying the aesthetic sense of the city but is also hazardous and dangerous to the smooth flow of traffic by distracting traffic and poses a safety challenge to the pedestrians and vehicles. Deaths caused by collapse of illegal hoardings are not new in India,” the court said.

 The court, taking note of the evidence, said that “hanging a banner board or affixing hoardings” amounted to defacement of property under Section 3 of the Act.   “The application under Section 156 (3) of (erstwhile) Code of Criminal Procedure (power of magistrate to order police investigation in a cognisable offence) deserves to be allowed,” it held.

 The station house officer (SHO) concerned was therefore directed to register the FIR “immediately under Section 3 of Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007” and any other offence perhaps was committed in the case.   The court said Section 5 of the Act prescribed an offence under the law to be cognisable.

 The court said it would be unfair to expect the complainant to gather evidence against the persons responsible and only Delhi Police could carry out a thorough investigation.  “The investigating agency cannot shrug its responsibility by saying that evidence cannot be collected due to lapse of time.”

 The court expressed surprise saying an action taken report (ATR) of the SHO remained silent on whether the hoardings were present on the date and time alleged by the complainant.  Deprecating the SHO’s conduct, it said, “The statement in the ATR that no hoardings were found on the date of enquiry appears to be an attempt by the investigating agency to hoodwink the court.”