New Delhi, Aug 17 A Delhi court has refused to order registration of an FIR over allegations that a group of men harassed girls studying at a tuition centre and later attacked residents, saying "mere omnibus allegations" without any specific incident or victim do not disclose a cognisable offence.
Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh dismissed a revision petition challenging a trial court's refusal to direct police to register an FIR and investigate the allegations.
In an order dated August 12, the court said, “With regard to the accused visiting the area of the tuition centre and harassing the girls, I find that these are general allegations and lack specificity.
"No particular incident has been disclosed. No victim has come forward. Thus, mere omnibus allegations fail to disclose the commission of such offences," the judge said.
The court was hearing a plea by Amit Kumar Gupta and Nabab Singh, who alleged that several men routinely harassed girls attending Savita Tuitions in northeast Delhi and disturbed residents by bursting firecrackers, abusing and attacking them.
The petitioners also alleged that on January 27, 2025, a group of around 50-60 people armed with iron rods and sticks attacked residents after one of the accused allegedly instigated them. They claimed several people suffered serious injuries and that women present at the spot were subjected to indecent behaviour.
The court, however, found that the allegations regarding harassment of girls were general and lacked specificity.
"No particular incident has been disclosed. No victim has come forward. Thus, mere omnibus allegations fail to disclose the commission of such offences," the judge said.
On the alleged assault, the court noted that although the petitioners claimed several people had suffered grievous injuries, they did not specify who had suffered what injury. No names or medical records showing such injuries were placed on record, it said.
The judge further said that photographs produced by the petitioners did not show injuries that could fall within the definition of grievous hurt under the law.
The petitioners had argued that police investigation was necessary to collect CCTV footage and other electronic evidence. The court rejected this contention, noting that the CCTV footage was already in their possession and had been filed before the trial court in a pen drive, along with snapshots.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court's order, the judge dismissed the revision petition.
