The summons issued by the trial court against Congress MP Mahabal Mishra and his brother has been stayed by the Delhi High Court for their alleged role in the kidnapping and rape of a minor girl in 2006.
The relief came hours after a fast-track court in Dwarka issued fresh summons directing Mishra, West Delhi MP from and his family members, including his wife and daughter, to appear before it on February 18.
Mishra and his brother Hira Prasad Mishra had approached the High Court against the summons issued to them on February 4 and also sought stay of the proceedings in the trial court.
Justice G.P. Mittal issued a notice and sought a response of the Delhi Police to the plea challenging the issuance of summons to them. The High Court also sought a response from the victim’s father who is complainant in the case. The judge also called for the trial court records and posted the matter for hearing on April 9.
The fast-track court, set up to try cases of sexual offences against women, this morning directed Mishra, his wife Urmila, daughter Kiran and brother Hira Prasad Mishra to ‘positively’ appear before it on the next date of hearing.
The trial court granted exemption to Mishra and his family members from personal appearance for the day after their counsel submitted that they have not been served with the summons issued earlier as they are not in Delhi. Mishra and his family members are accused of wrongfully confining a minor girl.
The victim and her father had alleged she was confined at Mishra’s office at Mahavir Enclave in West Delhi and his brother’s house for some days after being kidnapped and that his family members told her to marry the prime accused Pradeep Sehrawat who faces the rape charge.
The case relates to an incident in November, 2006 when Sehrawat had allegedly kidnapped the 16-year-old who was on her way to tuition in a West Delhi locality. Apart from the four accused (Mishra, his wife, daughter and brother), the others who have been chargesheeted by the police in the case are – Pradeep Sehrawat, Devender, Sunil, Surendra and Satinder.
The names of Mishra and his family members were mentioned in column 2, meant for the suspects but without evidence against them, of the supplementary charge sheet filed later by the police. A magisterial court had in 2008 and a sessions court had in 2010 declined to summon Mishra in the case on the ground of lack of evidence and legal provisions.
The Delhi High Court had, however, in 2012, set aside the trial court’s order and directed it to consider the case afresh after the girl’s father moved the High Court seeking initiation of prosecution of Mishra and his family members, and also one Kanshi Ram, for their alleged involvement in the case.
The High Court had set aside the orders of the sessions and the magisterial courts, saying they were ‘not based on a proper appreciation of the material available on record’
