The plea, which came up for hearing before Justice Manmohan, alleged that Imran was "vexatiously and illegally" arrested and detained by Delhi Police without following proper procedure and this "malafide act" of the cops was at the behest of his wife, who belongs to an "influential political family".
Syed Mohammed Imran, son-in-law of former Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit, on Wednesday moved the Delhi High Court seeking contempt action against his estranged wife and some cops alleging that he was arrested "casually" in a criminal case in contravention of the apex court guidelines.
Dikshit's daughter Latika has alleged that her estranged husband Imran took away papers of a land, owned by her at Nainital, despite having been told not to do so. An FIR under penal provisions relating to cheating, dishonest misappropriation of property and theft has been lodged against Imran.
Referring an apex court verdict, Imran said that the police needed to follow the "checklist/guidelines which have been laid down by it against casual arrests in cases under Section 498A (harassment to woman by her husband and her in-laws) of the IPC as also under cases where punishment is for seven years or less".
The plea, which came up for hearing before Justice Manmohan, alleged that Imran was "vexatiously and illegally" arrested and detained by Delhi Police without following proper procedure and this "malafide act" of the cops was at the behest of his wife, who belongs to an "influential political family".
Advocates P Banerjee and Neeraj Kumar, appearing for Imran, argued in the court that a false and fabricated FIR was lodged against their client without application of mind and checking the genuineness of his wife's complaint regarding matrimonial dispute and that he was wrongfully confined in custody for 15 days.
The counsel said the contents of the FIR "ex-facie" showed that the allegations in the complaint pertained to matrimonial dispute but the FIR was lodged under other penal provisions.
The FIR does not disclose commission of any offence under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property) and 380 (theft) read with section 66 of the IT Act, which have been invoked by the police, he said. "The allegations in the FIR are in the nature of matrimonial dispute. The respondents ought not to have registered in a routine manner and in fact should have forwarded the complaint for approval of the DCP/Additional DCP, before registering an FIR," the plea said, adding that the "police officers have bypassed the law".
To this, the court asked Imran's counsel to show the law which says that if a section is not added at the time of lodging of an FIR, fresh sections cannot be invoked later on. "According to me, the Criminal Procedure Code says that the magistrate can add sections on his own. Even at the stage of appeal, a charge can be added," the judge said and posted the matter for further hearing to December 15.
Imran was arrested on November 10 from Bangalore and brought here on transit remand, and was granted bail by a court here on November 24. Latika and Imran had got married in 1996, but were living separately for the last 10 months. In her complaint filed in June, Latika had alleged that Imran's attitude had changed towards her and had become aggressive and rude after her mother lost in the Delhi Assembly polls.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Sheila Dikshit")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}