Search the Internet          Tips

HC defers hearing on Krishna's petition in Ansal Plaza case

In his petition, Krishna has alleged that the police encounter was stage-managed.

The court also directed that records of a relevant public interest petition dismissed last week be placed before it.

Krishna, who claims to be an eyewitness to the November 3 killing of two suspected terrorists, has sought quashing of the police notice to him for recording his statement as a witness under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

He also sought an independent probe into the incident, saying that the police could not be expected to act impartially.

A bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice H R Malhotra directed Delhi police counsel Mukta Gupta to ensure that the records of the public interest petition be brought before it.

When the bench asked why the so-called eyewitness was not responding to the police notice for recording a statement, his counsel Surat Singh said, "My client has apprehensions that the police may proceed against him under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. The notice to him was merely to cover up their action."

Section 174 gives the police the power to proceed against a person for non-attendance of an order by a public servant.

The police counsel said Hari Krishna's petition has become infructuous, as the court had dismissed an identical petition earlier.

Krishna's counsel alleged that Deputy Commissioner of Police Ashok Chand of the special cell, Assistant Commissioner of Police Rajbir Singh, and two inspectors involved in the case had approached his client and pressurized him. He also said that they told him to make a statement saying that the militants were armed and there was cross firing between them and the police. "The notice was sent to my client on November 5, three days after the incident. The police came to his place and told him not to speak. Why should they come to his place?"

Krishna has said that he is willing to record his statement before a magistrate. Denying that he had gone underground, his counsel claimed that his client was at home. He added that his client had no option but to hold a press conference at his residence when the police told reporters that he had gone underground.

While naming the Delhi government, DCP Ashok Chand, ACP Rajbir Singh and two other officials as respondents, Krishna sought notices against them from the court.

Although the police has dug out many criminal cases against Krishna, his counsel claimed that under section 54 of the Evidence Act, a person's past conduct is not relevant for his being a witness to a particular incident.

Tell us what you think of this report