A Delhi court today reserved its order on a plea challenging a magisterial court's decision dismissing a criminal complaint seeking registration of FIR against Union Minister V K Singh for his alleged "dog" remarks in the aftermath of burning of two Dalit children in Haryana.
Additional Sessions Judge Ajay Gupta fixed April 30 for pronouncing the order on the revision petition filed by an advocate after hearing arguments.
The police had opposed the plea, saying no cognisable offence was made out against Singh for his alleged remarks on October 21, 2015.
The revision petition was filed in December last year by complainant, advocate Satya Prakash Gautam, challenging the trial court's order alleging that the magistrate "has only desperately tried to shield the proposed accused under various pretexts including those not even on record, like the intention of the proposed accused while making impugned statements which were the basis of filing the present complaint."
"It is clear...That the metropolitan magistrate has tried to step into the shoes of the counsel of the proposed accused to defend him. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone," Gautam had claimed.
The magisterial court had on December 7, 2015 dismissed his plea observing that no criminal offence was "ex-facie" made out against the former Army chief.
The court had said that for no reason Singh's statement could be seen as a remark made to demean any caste or creed and it did not see the comment as an "analogy drawn between dog (as an animal) and humans (of a caste or creed)".
The complainant had alleged that Singh, the Minister of State for External Affairs, had hurt the sentiments of the Dalit community by such remarks.
Singh had kicked up a storm with his alleged remarks in connection with the Faridabad incident that the government cannot be blamed if anyone throws a stone at a dog.
The court had earlier directed the police to file an action taken report (ATR) on the complaint seeking lodging of FIR against Singh under provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Information Technology Act and IPC.
The police, in its ATR, had told the court that Singh had not made any "specific derogatory and humiliating statement" warranting his prosecution on the complaint.
