New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Monday refused to stay the trial court proceedings in a case in which it was alleged that chief minister Arvind Kejriwal gave false information to the Election Commission in his affidavit in the run up to the 2013 Assembly polls.
Justice A.K. Pathak said the interim relief of exemption from personal appearance to Mr Kejriwal before the trial court will continue till the next date and listed the matter for further hearing on July 30.
When the AAP leader’s counsel sought a stay on the trial court proceedings claiming there was a defect in the summoning order and notice could be framed on Mr Kejriwal, the judge said he was not inclined to stay the lower court’s proceedings in the complaint case.
The trial court had issued summons to Mr Kejriwal in February 2016 on a criminal complaint filed by Neeraj Saxena and Anuj Agarwal on behalf of an NGO, noting that the chief minister had prima facie “wilfully concealed” and “suppressed” details regarding his assets and income. The trial court had on December 24, 2016, granted bail to Mr Kejriwal.
The high court had on May 29 last year issued notice and sought the response of the complainants in the matter. Mr Saxena and Mr Agarwal have already filed their replies.
Earlier, the NGO had approached the Delhi high court with a plea seeking quashing of Mr Kejriwal’s nomination papers on the ground of “illegalities” in his affidavit. But the high court had refused to entertain the petition and directed the petitioners to approach a magisterial court.
The NGO, in its plea in the high court, had alleged that Mr Kejriwal had violated the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act by submitting an affidavit which had incorrect details of his assets and income at the time of filing the nomination.
The complaint was filed under several sections of the RP Act and the IPC for the alleged offences committed by him before holding the office of the chief minister of Delhi.
The complaint alleged that Mr Kejriwal falsely gave his Delhi address so as to qualify for contesting the polls in the capital though he lived in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. It claimed that his act prima facie amounted to wilful concealment, suppression and furnishing of false information.
