New Delhi [India], April 19: Delhi Police on Saturday submitted a status report before the Rouse Avenue Court in connection with a case of alleged defacement of public property involving former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, ex-MLA Gulab Singh, and MCD councillor Nitika Sharma.
The report, submitted to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal, noted that investigations are ongoing and requested additional time to trace the accused.
“Consistent efforts are being made to trace the accused persons,” the report stated.
Police also confirmed that a site plan was prepared on April 3 at the complainant’s instance, and it has been placed on record.
The case stems from a complaint lodged in 2019 by Shiv Kumar Saksena, who alleged unauthorised political hoardings across several locations in Delhi’s Dwarka area—including parks, roads, poles, and walls—violating the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007.
The court had earlier directed police to register an FIR under Section 3 of the Act after determining that the application under Section 156(3) CrPC warranted legal action.
The complaint referenced hoardings with political messages and photos of several leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal, Gulab Singh, and Nitika Sharma. Some banners extended festive greetings, while others advertised state-sponsored initiatives.
Police initially claimed in a 2022 status report that no such hoardings were found at the time, resulting in the complaint’s dismissal by a Dwarka court. However, Saksena filed a revision petition, which was allowed by the Rouse Avenue Court, directing a fresh hearing.
During the renewed proceedings, the Legal Aid Counsel (LAC) for the complainant argued that the previous police report failed to investigate past evidence and that the complainant could not determine who put up the hoardings. The APP for the State countered that without printer details or clear attribution, identifying the responsible party was unfeasible.
Rejecting the prosecution’s objections, the court ruled that investigation authorities can include any individual implicated, regardless of whether they were named in the original complaint.
“Omission or inclusion of names in the complaint does not bind the course of investigation,” the court clarified.
The case has now been listed for the next hearing on May 3.