Tha­roor, po­lice op­pose Swamy’s ap­pli­ca­tion in Su­nanda Pushkar’s death case

The Northlines - - NATION - New Delhi, Dec 07

Congress leader Shashi Tha­roor’s coun­sel Vikas Pahwa and pub­lic pros­e­cu­tor on Thurs­day op­posed Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP) leader Subra­ma­nian Swamy’s ap­pli­ca­tion seek­ing di­rec­tion to the Delhi Po­lice to pro­duce vig­i­lance in­quiry re­port con­ducted af­ter Su­nanda Pushkar’s death and to al­low him to as­sist the pros­e­cu­tion in the case.

Af­ter con­clud­ing the ar­gu­ments in the mat­ter, the Pa­tiala House Court has re­served its order on Swamy’s ap­pli­ca­tion on De­cem­ber 10.

Tha­roor’s coun­sel has filed the ap­pli­ca­tion un­der Sec­tion 207 of Crim­i­nal Pro­ce­dure Code ( CRPC) seek­ing di­rec­tion for rec­on­cil­ing of the data stored in three hard disks sub­mit­ted by the Delhi Po­lice in the court. The hard disks, which have more than 900 GB of data, were filed in the court in the form of Folder F.

Folder F com­prises nu­mer­ous CDS, pen drives, hard disks, mem­ory sticks etc. The data stored in these three hard disks was pre­pared in July 2018.

Dur­ing the court pro­ceed­ings, the Ad­di­tional Chief Metropoli­tan Magistrate ( ACMM) al­lowed the ap­pli­ca­tion and di­rected the in­ves­ti­gat­ing of­fi­cer to sit with the coun­sels and start the process of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion from to­day it­self.

Tha­roor’s coun­sel Pahwa chal­lenged the lo­cus standi of Swamy say­ing that he is a stranger to the pro­ceed­ings and can­not be per­mit­ted to par­tic­i­pate in the crim­i­nal trial in any man­ner. He also cited nu­mer­ous judge­ments of the apex court and Delhi High Court in sup­port of this ar­gu­ment. The Spe­cial Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tor also ve­he­mently ob­jected to the ap­pli­ca­tion say­ing that the Delhi Po­lice does not want any as­sis­tance from Swamy.

How­ever, Swamy ar­gued that the charge sheet against Tha­roor in Pushkar’s death is in­com­plete and against the in­ter­est of jus­tice. Af­ter the pro­longed hear­ing, Swamy said that he will not press his prayer for as­sist­ing the pros­e­cu­tion but in­sisted that his plea seek­ing the vig­i­lance en­quiry re­port should be al­lowed so that the same can be con­sid­ered by the court dur­ing the fram­ing of charges.

This plea was also op­posed by Tha­roor’s ad­vo­cate on the ground that this prayer amounts to di­rect­ing fur­ther in­ves­ti­ga­tion un­der Sec­tion 173( 8) of CRPC, which is not per­mis­si­ble in law par­tic­u­larly when the court has al­ready taken cog­ni­sance in the case. Su­nanda Pushkar was found dead un­der mys­te­ri­ous cir­cum­stances in a suite of a Delhi ho­tel on the night of Jan­uary 17, 2014. The cou­ple was stay­ing in the ho­tel as their house was un­der­go­ing ren­o­va­tion. Tha­roor was sum­moned by the court in June this year, ob­serv­ing there was suf­fi­cient ground to pro­ceed against him.

The Congress leader was charged un­der Sec­tions 306 (abet­ment of sui­cide) and 498A (hus­band or his rel­a­tive sub­ject­ing a woman to cru­elty) of the In­dian Pe­nal Code (IPC). He, how­ever, dis­missed the charge sheet terming it “pre­pos­ter­ous”.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.