New Delhi, May 4 (UNI) A Delhi court framed charges against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament (MP) Yogender Chandolia for assaulting a Traffic Police Official in 2020. The matter is to be heard on May 22.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal after hearing arguments on behalf of the Prosecution and Defence Counsel on Saturday, said, "In view of the discussion, accused Yogender Chandolia is discharged u/s 186 IPC and prima facie case for offences punishable u/s

341/353/356/34 IPC is made out against the accused".

"Charge stands framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Complainant be summoned for evidence for the next date", the court said.

Counsel for the accused submitted that a quashing petition is listed before the High Court of Delhi for 19.05.2025, hence, request is made for fixing the date of evidence beyond this date.

The court said, "In view thereof, the matter stands adjourned for P.E. for 22.05.2025".

Brief facts of the case was that a 100 number call was received which was recorded on date 07.10.2020, P.S. Prasad Nagar regarding the blocking of a crane by a group of people upon which ASI Pavinder Kumar along with Ct. Sunil reached at the spot.

Thereafter, on 08.10.2020, the complainant HC Raj Kumar gave a written complaint stating that on 07.10.2020 at around 4:30 p.m. near Shiv Mandir, Tank Road, while he was on crane duty, he pointed towards one Scooty which was improperly parked upon which the accused starting shouting and asked why is he not lifting the other cars which are also improperly parked.

The accused then blocked the way of the crane and used abusive language against the complainant. The accused incited people who gathered at the spot and he kept on misbehaving with the complainant despite repeated efforts to pacify him.

It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant started recording the incident on his mobile phone upon which the accused tried to snatch his phone and he also pulled down the complainant when he was trying to board the crane. It is further alleged that the complainant handed over his mobile phone to his labor Beera, but some unknown accomplice of the accused snatched the mobile phone from Beera.

Thereafter, the accused kept the keys of the crane and the mobile phone of the complainant with himself upon which 100 number call was made and TI was also intimated.

The FIR was registered on 08.10.2020 under sections 186 (obstructing public servant in the discharge of his public functions), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 353 (assault to deter a public servant from discharge of their duty) of Indian Penal Code(IPC) against Chandolia. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the court.

Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is entitled to be discharged as there are material lacuna in the case of prosecution. He argued that no charge under Section 186 IPC is made out against the accused as the FIR was lodged without compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

He argued that the complainant has not been medically examined which could have proved "assault or use of criminal force", one of the essential ingredients of the said offence. He further argued that charge under Section 356 IPC is also not made out against the accused as there was no attempt or intention to commit theft of any property. He said that it is not the case of prosecution that any stolen property has been recovered from the accused.

With respect to Section 341 IPC, it is argued that mere verbal protest or confrontation does not amount to wrongful restraint unless there was physical prevention from proceeding. It has further been argued that neither any independent witnesses have been joined in the investigation nor any CCTV footage of the incident has been procured which casts shadow of doubt on the case of the prosecution.

He argued that the present case is ill motivated as the accused, being a Public Representative, was protesting against unlawful conduct of traffic police and it is because of this reason that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Counsel prayed to the court that the accused may be discharged.

Government Counsel argued that the accused has been specifically named in the complaint and that the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient to frame charges as only prima facie case is required to be established at this stage.

It is further argued that complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. is on record and the same was given before cognizance in the present matter was taken and hence, there is no bar in framing of charge under Section 186 IPC against the accused. It is further argued that the labor who was present on the crane at the time of incident are independent public witnesses and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded by the IO.

It is further argued that the entire incident has been duly captured in the video recording and its

veracity has been established through FSL examination. With these submissions, it is submitted that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused.

UNI XC RN