A court here has accepted the Delhi Police’s plea seeking closure of a corruption case against a sub-inspector and constable after the complainant refused to stand by his allegations.
The complainant, Mahi Ram, had alleged that sub-inspector Pradeep Kumar and constable Ramnath had extorted ₹2,000 from him, but issued a challan of ₹1,000 only for not possessing insurance of his vehicle.
The Vigilance Unit had registered a case based on an enquiry report submitted by ACP S.S. Kaushik. During the course of enquiry, the ACP had recorded the statements of the complainant as well as the two policemen.
Lack of evidence
The investigating agency chose to close the case based on advice of the prosecution, which said there was no evidence except an email from Dr. Ram Bishnoi, who is the complainant’s brother-in-law, and the statement of the complainant who was challaned for violating traffic rules.
The complainant also urged the court to close the case, saying he had not paid ₹2,000 to the policemen as alleged earlier.’
‘Did not pay extra’
“During consideration of closure report, statement on oath of complainant Mahi Ram was recorded wherein he stated that on the day of the incident, the traffic police had challaned him and imposed a fine of ₹1,000 for violation of rules, and that the requisite fine was paid by him. He further stated that he did not pay any amount excess and that he had no objection if the closure report filed by the prosecution in this case is accepted,” Special Judge Hemani Malhotra said while closing the case.
“In view of the statement made by complainant Mahi Ram in the court and the material on record, no prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the accused traffic officials i.e. Sub-Inspector Pradeep Kumar and Constable Ramnath. Resultantly, the closure report is accepted,’’ the Judge said.
