The petitioner, who claimed to be the driver of a BJP MLA, said the 12-member AMU proctorial team abused him and made him remove the BJP flag.
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition filed by 12 members of the proctorial team of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against them, in a case of alleged wrongful confinement and abuse of a man who was forced to remove the BJP flag from the car he was driving on the campus.
The petitioners had moved the High Court challenging criminal proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. Justice JJ Munir on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Professor Brij Bhushan Singh and 11 other members of the proctorial board of the AMU, on the grounds that the presence of the accused at the place of incident is not disputed. Therefore, whether they abused the victim or not can only be determined by the trial court after going through evidence placed before it during the trial, the HC held.
During the course of the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel referred to certain circulars of the university banning the use of flagged vehicles of any political party on the university campus. The state government counsel opposed the plea, saying the offence was serious and could have had wide ramifications for the law and order situation.
As per the FIR, it is alleged that on October 22, 2019, Guddu Singh, who claimed to be the driver of Thakur Dalveer Singh, the BJP MLA from Barauli constituency of Aligarh, went to pick up the legislator’s grandson Vijay Kumar Singh. Around 4 PM, when he entered the AMU campus and was on his way to pick up Vijay, he was forcibly stopped by the Proctorial team and asked to remove the BJP party flag.
The 12-member team abused him and said that there was no place for the BJP in the university, it was alleged. The FIR of the incident was registered at the civil lines police station of Aligarh on the same day and, after an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners on January 23, 2020, which was challenged before the High Court.
Source: Read Full Article