One of the tallest members of the Omar Abdullahs council of Ministers, Sajjad Ahmad Kitchloo, presently holding the charge of MOS Home was grounded on Monday by a court order which directed the SHO police station Kishtwar to register an FIR against him in the sensational slapping case.
Kitchloo had reportedly slapped CEO of Kishtwar Development Authority on April 18 inside Tourist Reception centre in the presence of senior administrative and police officers ahead of the visit of Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.
The judge noted , “as our country is governed by the rule of law and no body is above law as such the SHO Police station,Kishtwar is directed to register an FIR and then proceed in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex court in India.
The Judge further directed DIG Kishtwar-Doda-Ramban Range and SP Kishtwar to monitor the case and see that the law of the land should be implemented in its letter and spirit.
Interestingly, the MOS Home cared little about the friendly advice of the Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to personally meet the officer and resolve the issue among themselves.
Aggrieved with the working of police, Chief Executive Officer Kishtwar Development Authority Riaz Ahmad Choudhary had moved an application before CJM Kishtwar for issuance of directions to SHO Kishtwar for registration of the FIR against Kitchloo.
Ironically, the police even went on to submit the report claiming that no case has been made out against the minister as no offence as alleged by the complainant in his application has been proved.
Referring to judgements passed by the apex court, the CJM observed that proper procedure laid down in CrPC was not followed by the police and investigation has been carried without registering the FIR, which is mandatory.
Expressing dissatisfaction over the action of SHO Kishtwar, the CJM also observed that the SHO had not submitted the completion report of investigation.The CJM also noted in its order, it is not understandable as to why the SHO was in so hurry to furnish the so called report before the court because the present application was referred to SHO on 29.04.2013 and he was given sufficient time of fifteen days to conduct the investigation and furnish the report but at the same time te SHO has furnished the report on the fourth day even without recording the statement of the complainant which is otherwise mandatory for the purpose of investigation.