Delhi court issues notice on former MLA Shoaib Iqbal's revision petition against framing of charges in criminal case

New Delhi [India], January 27 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday issued a notice on former MLA Shoaib Iqbal's revision petition against the framing of charges in a criminal case pertaining to an FIR for allegedly obstructing a public servant in discharging their official duty.
In the 2017 FIR, it is alleged that a team of MCD officials was obstructed and confined while inspecting a property in Daryaganj.
It is alleged that the team was allowed to leave only after the Deputy Commissioner spoke to the petitioners. The team was allegedly forced to delete the photographs taken by the mobile during the inspection.
Special Judge (MP-MLA) Jitendra Singh issued a notice for the revision on February 19. The trial court record has also been summoned for the next date.
Shoaib Iqbal has challenged two orders of November 22, 2025 and January 14, 2026, wherein directions for framing of charges were passed.
Advocate Wajeeh Shafiq appeared for the petitioners, former MLA Shoaib Iqbal and his son, MLA Aaley Mohd Iqbal is challenging the November 22 order that charges be framed against the petitioners under Sections 186, 342, 353, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Another order of January 14, 2026, has also been challenged. It is stated that at the relevant time, the date of the alleged offence, Aaley Mohd Iqbal was not a Member of the Legislative Assembly, but was the Chairman of the Ward Committee, City Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation. On that day, Shoaib Iqbal was not the sitting MLA.
On January 13, 2017, an FIR was lodged by the police of Police Station Daryaganj against the petitioners on the complaint of Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Executive Engineer (Buildings), Headquarters, North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
The petition states that it is a matter of record that no arrests were made, not even of those allegedly standing at the exit door of the fictional room at property's first floor under reference. Besides, the officer's mobile phone, for which it is alleged that photographs at the site were captured, was also not seized. (ANI)