Special Judge Vishal Gogne was reviewing a revision petition against the magisterial court’s ruling from September 11, which rejected the petition, stating that the complaint was “crafted to give the court jurisdiction through allegations that are legally untenable, lacking in substance, and beyond the authority of this forum.”
Issuing a notice to Gandhi and the Delhi Police, Judge Gogne scheduled the matter for further proceedings on January 6.
The revision petition was submitted by advocate Vikas Tripathi, vice president of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association of the Rouse Avenue courts.
Tripathi’s representation, senior advocate Pavan Narang, had asserted before the magisterial court that during January 1980, Gandhi’s name was recorded as a voter in the New Delhi constituency while she was not an Indian citizen.
He alleged “some forgery” and that a public authority had been “deceived.”
However, the magistrate dismissed the petition seeking an investigation, determining that the complainant attempted to initiate criminal proceedings by urging the court to assume jurisdiction that it did not legally hold.
He remarked that “mere bald assertions, lacking the essential details necessary to meet the statutory definitions of cheating or forgery” cannot replace a legally viable accusation.
The magistrate stated that the petition merely referenced an extract of the electoral roll, which was “a photocopy of a photocopy of an alleged extract from an uncertified electoral roll” from 1980.
Criticizing the complaint, the magistrate noted, “Such a course, in essence, amounts to an abuse of the legal process by presenting a civil or ordinary dispute under the guise of criminality, simply to establish jurisdiction where none exists.”
