The Saket District Court in Delhi on Saturday dismissed an application filed by Ratna Singh, legal affairs head of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), seeking registration of an FIR against police personnel for allegedly wrongfully confining her and preventing her from attending a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Chief Judicial Magistrate Abhinav Pandey held that the application was not maintainable due to the absence of a supporting affidavit and failure to specify the public servant against whom the allegations were made. The court also rejected Singh's separate plea for her immediate release, noting that a complaint on oath was a mandatory requirement for invoking its power under Section 98 CrPC read with Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Procedural Hurdles Prove Fatal

In a detailed order, the magistrate pointed out that the application did not adhere even to the basic requirements of Section 175(4) BNSS, which governs complaints to a magistrate regarding offences. The court observed that no specific public servant was named, making it impossible to identify the "Officer Superior" from whom a report could be sought. Singh had also sought an alternative direction for registration of a non-cognisable report (NCR), but the court rejected this, noting that the alleged offences of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement under Sections 126 and 127 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, are cognisable in nature, rendering the NCR prayer inconsistent with the allegations.

The magistrate emphasised that a complaint "on oath" is a mandatory requirement to exercise the court's power under Section 98 CrPC/101 BNSS for release. Since Singh's application for release was not supported by an affidavit, it too was dismissed as not maintainable.

Allegations of Wrongful Confinement

According to the application, Singh, a practising advocate, was proceeding towards the Supreme Court on October 10 with two fellow advocates to participate in a lawyers' protest against the Chief Election Commissioner. After returning to the area outside her residence in Jangpura Extension, she was sitting in a car with advocate Tara Narula when two vehicles allegedly blocked her car from the front and rear, while police personnel stood outside the doors. Singh claimed that despite repeatedly asking the officers to show the legal basis for restricting her movement, no order or authorisation was produced. She alleged that a PCR call was made by another advocate accompanying her, and that she faced a threat to her life and liberty.

Singh sought the court's intervention to direct registration of an FIR or NCR against the police personnel involved and to call for a status report from the authorities. She argued that the urgency of the situation prevented her from first approaching higher police officers, whom she suspected might be complicit.

Judicial Exchange During Hearing

The hearing witnessed a sharp exchange between the magistrate and Singh's counsel, Advocate Adit S. Pujari, who appeared via video conferencing. Pujari submitted that Singh had been detained for around eight hours and urged the court to take note of the changed circumstances. However, the magistrate repeatedly asked the lawyers to refrain from making further submissions once arguments had concluded.

"You have no business telling what order should be passed and what order should not be passed," the magistrate remarked. He added, "I am not concerned about the situation which has changed. I am concerned about the arguments which have been made in the application before me. It is my limited job to decide that application. That's it."

When Pujari suggested that there appeared to be some disappointment with the lawyers' conduct, the magistrate reiterated that counsel should allow the court to pass its order once submissions were complete. "Once you have made your submissions, you need not argue any further. Let the court pass the order which is already under dictation," he said.

Context of CJP Protest and Police Denial

The application was filed amid heightened security in Delhi ahead of a proposed CJP protest at Jantar Mantar demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Delhi Police had denied permission for the October 10 demonstration, stating that the CJP's application was submitted late—only three days before the event, against the required ten-day advance notice. The police also cited alleged non-compliance with conditions imposed during an earlier protest, where a permitted one-day demonstration allegedly continued for about a month, leading to law and order concerns.

Singh was among several lawyers detained ahead of the protest. In a video circulated by the CJP, she alleged that police personnel had visited her residence in the morning and later surrounded her car without producing any official notice. Following an urgent communication from the Supreme Court Bar Association, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant conveyed to the authorities that detained advocates should be released, and Singh was subsequently freed in the evening.

Dismissal and Next Steps

The court concluded that the application for FIR registration was "not even prima facie maintainable in the present form" and accordingly dismissed it. The alternative prayer for an NCR was also rejected. With both applications dismissed, the matter stands disposed of. The order underscores the procedural rigour required when seeking a magistrate's direction for registration of an FIR, particularly the necessity of a sworn complaint and precise identification of the accused public servant.