The Delhi High Court recently quashed a 17-year-old attempt-to-murder case against academic Madhu Kishwar [Prof Madhu Kishwar v State of NCT of Delhi & Ors].
The first information report (FIR) was registered against Kishwar in 2008 on a complaint filed by the members of the Basoya family while she (Kishwar) was clicking pictures in the Sewa Nagar Street Vendors’ market for a project run by her organisation, Manushi.
Kishwar had alleged that the Basoya family runs a string of illegal businesses in the area.
In an order passed on October 16, Justice Amit Mahajan termed the FIR “maliciously motivated counterblast” to an earlier case in which Kishwar had accused the complainant (Basoya family members) of thrashing her while she was clicking pictures.
The Court noted that the complainant had already been convicted in the FIR registered against them based on Kishwar’s complaint.
“In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR 162/2008 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed,” the Court ordered.
Kishwar was booked under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR stemmed from an altercation on December 31, 2007. The complainant, Basoyas, had accused Kishwar of instructing her driver to run over them with a car during a dispute over the alleged allotment of shops in Sewa Nagar Market. It was also alleged that Kishwar and her associates assaulted the complainant and her family members, causing serious injuries.
Kishwar’s counsel argued that the FIR was filed to retaliate against an earlier complaint she had lodged the same day, in which the complainant and her relatives were later convicted. Kishwar had alleged that the complainant’s group had formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Kishwar and her driver when she was photographing illegal encroachments in the market.
After considering the case, the High Court ordered quashing of the case.
“Even if the allegations of the complainant are taken at the highest, considering the complainants conviction in a case arising out of same incident, the same can at best be considered as a self- defence or an altercation at the stage when the complainant has formed an unlawful assemble and caused injuries to the petitioner and another person when they were carrying out certain functions assigned to them,” the Court said.
Advocates Ravi Sharma, Shivam Mishra and Madhulika Rai Sharma appeared for Madhu Kishwar.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Priyanka Dalal appeared for the State.
[Read Order]