By IANS,
Lucknow : The Uttar Pradesh assembly secretariat Tuesday directed the Lucknow city police chief to file a First Information Report (FIR) against Samajwadi Party’s Rajya Sabha member Jaya Bachchan for allegedly concealing information about her property in 2006 while filing her nomination.
The principal secretary to the state assembly, R.P. Pandey, directed Lucknow Senior Superintendent of Police Akhil Kumar to file the complaint against the actress-turned-politician. She had allegedly concealed information about her property in her June 1, 2006, affidavit while filing her nomination.
The complainant, Amir Haider, an advocate and a resident of Barabanki district, had lodged a written complaint with the Election Commission on June 28, 2006.
“In her affidavit, she has provided information about only one plot of land in Barabanki, despite the fact that Amitabh Bachchan has three pieces of land in the Daulatpur village of the district. Besides this, the survey number and other details of the land were also not mentioned,” stated the complainant.
“This clearly indicates that it is an act of concealment of fact and is also a legal offence. There is a provision under Sections 192 (fabricating false evidence) and 193 (punishment for false evidence) of the Indian Penal Code for such offences,” Haider said.
The decision came after long rounds of written communications between the Election Commission, Haider and Jaya Bachchan over the past two years.
Pandey stated that action on the complaint got delayed as a number of cases involving the lands in question were being heard in various courts.
The Supreme Court in its verdict on March 31 this year removed all obstacles for initiating legal action against Jaya, he added.
Hence, the Lucknow SSP Akhil Kumar has been directed to lodge an FIR and initiate necessary action, he said.
When contacted, Akhil Kumar told IANS: “I have received the directive from the principal secretary of the state assembly. We are not lodging an FIR right away since we would like to have a proper legal opinion on it.”
“We want the directive to be legally vetted before initiating any legal action,” he added.