Delhi Standing Counsel Rahul Mehra denies consent for initiation of contempt proceedings against CBI officer who allegedly hit a prosecutor

Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl), Delhi, has denied consent for initiation of criminal contempt against a CBI officer who allegedly hit a public prosecutor.."The instant case is not fit for granting my consent for criminal contempt proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," Mehra said. .Request for sanction was made by advocate Amit Sahni by way a representation under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971..Sahni had sought initiation of contempt proceedings against Raghavendra Vats, DIG, CBI after he reportedly “punched and strangulated” a CBI prosecutor inside CBI headquarters. .The assault happened over the delay in the framing of charges against former Secretary to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a corruption case..It was Sahni's assertion that Vats caused deliberate obstruction in the administration of justice..Mehra, however, opined that the averments in Sahni's representation, for now, did not amount to criminal contempt as per section 2 (c ) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971. It was noted that separate authorities had already initiated appropriate actions at their own levels..He said, ."I have carefully perused your application along with the annexures and am of the view of the averments made in the application do not, for now, amount to criminal contempt as per section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 as a bare perusal of the application reveals that the applicant has already initiated criminal proceedings against the proposed Respondent by filing a criminal complaint in the police station Lodhi Road for assault and the inquiry into the said complaint has commenced.".It was also considered that the trial court concerned has also taken a serious view of the matter and summoned Vats to appear in person before the court..A fact finding enquiry has also been ordered by CBI, Mehra recorded. .In view of the above, permission for initiation of contempt action was denied. .[Read Rahule Mehra's response]