Shimla: In a major reprieve to BJP MP and BCCI President Anurag Thakur, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Monday set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against him and others in a trial court in Dharamsala.
Thakur, state cricket association functionaries and BJP leaders were accused of obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty.
In a 38-page judgement, Justice Rajiv Sharma observed that the complaint filed by the Station House Officer of Dharamsala before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and his consequential orders were quashed and set aside.
“There is nothing on record to suggest that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered whether the complaint disclosed commission of offence or not. He was required to form a definite opinion before summoning the accused after applying his mind to the contents of the complaint,” Justice Sharma observed.
Thakur — who has been the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) chief — visited the Superintendent of Police (vigilance bureau office) in Dharamsala to join investigation in a case of cheating and criminal breach of trust registered against the cricket body. His supporters protested at the vigilance office and obstructed working of the officials there.
The trial court on November 7, 2015 framed charges against Thakur and others.
The Member of Parliament had sought quashing of complaint pending in the chief judicial magistrate’s court along with consequential court proceedings.
Advocate General Shrawan Dogra said Thakur along with other persons had obstructed voluntarily the public servants from discharging their duties by entering the police station and the office of Superintendent of Police.
He said 200 to 250 Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha workers carrying banners and bursting crackers also entered the police station at that time.
“Prima facie case exists under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. Let all accused persons be summoned on April 4,” the Chief Judicial Magistrate had observed on March 10, 2014.
However, the High Court rejected the CJM’s observation.