New Delhi, Read: On Monday, Delhi court gave an important order in the case related to enrollment of name of Congress leader Sonia Gandhi in the voter list. Special Judge Vishal Gogane of Rouse Avenue Court quashed the magistrate court's order which had refused to investigate the allegation that Sonia Gandhi's name was included in the voter list before she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983.
The court sent the case back to the magistrate and directed for a fresh hearing on the complaint and passing an order with reasons. The next hearing in the case will be on September 29. This review petition was filed by advocate Vikas Tripathi, vice president of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association of Rouse Avenue courts. The complaint alleged that Sonia Gandhi's name was registered in the voter list of New Delhi parliamentary constituency in 1980, although she had acquired Indian citizenship on April 30, 1983.
Name in 1980, removed in 1982 and allegation registered again in 1983
The special judge, reading out significant portions of the order orally, said the complaint alleged that Sonia Gandhi's name was allegedly included in the voter list of 1980. After this, it was also mentioned in the complaint that the name was removed in 1982 and registered again in 1983. The complainant had demanded an investigation into this entire incident.
The magistrate court had earlier dismissed the complaint saying it was based on claims made without adequate evidence and did not contain necessary details of the alleged fraud and forgery. The court had also held that the copy of the 1980 voter list used in the complaint was not a certified original document.
Special court pointed out legal flaws in the old order
Special Judge Vishal Gogane said the magistrate's order did not clearly state whether the allegations made in the complaint constitute a cognizable offense or not. The court also said that the required procedure under Section 175(3) of the Indian Civil Defense Code (BNSS) was not followed. This includes listening to the concerned police officer and asking for a situation report from the police station.
According to the court, the magistrate had two options under the law – to register an FIR and direct the police to investigate or to take further action on the complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS. The special court said that these options were not properly considered.
Comment also regarding going on the issue of citizenship
The special judge said that the magistrate had primarily to see whether the complaint made out any cognizable offense and whether there was a need for police investigation. According to the court, the magistrate instead moved towards the issue of citizenship and did not explain why an investigation should not be conducted into the allegations related to alleged inclusion of names in the voter list. The court has sent the case back to the magistrate court and has directed to pass a fresh order with reasons after hearing the arguments of the complainant afresh. The next hearing will be held on September 29.
Also read:- Ram temple offering controversy: UP SIT will file charge sheet in two days, UP government gave big information in Supreme Court