<p>A Delhi court has dismissed a criminal complaint filed against Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh and others for allegedly kidnapping a key witness of the 2008 cash-for-vote case.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The decision came just two months after the former Samajwadi Party leader was given a clean chit by a court in the cash-for-vote case in which he was accused of "conspiring" and "masterminding" attempts to bribe some MPs ahead of a confidence vote in Lok Sabha on July 22, 2008.<br /><br />The court dismissed the complaint filed by Hasmat Ali, who is one of the prime witnesses in the cash-for-vote scam case, saying testimony of the complainant was "unbelievable" as it was not corroborated by any independent witnesses.<br /><br />"In my view the testimony of the complainant, CW1 Hasmat Ali is unbelievable because it is not corroborated by any independent witness...Therefore, his sole testimony is being discredited. In view of the aforesaid, the complaint is dismissed under section 203 of CrPC," Metropolitan Magistrate Jay Thareja said.<br /><br />Amar Singh, who was arrayed as one of the accused in the cash-for-vote scam, was on November 22 last discharged by a court here along with L K Advani's ex-aide Sudheendra Kulkarni and other BJP leaders in the case.<br /><br />Ali had earlier moved a magisterial court seeking lodging of FIR against Singh, his secretary Tarun and Ramesh claiming that he was kidnapped from Khan Market here on September 25, 2008 when he was to depose before a parliamentary inquiry committee probing the case.<br /><br />The magistrate had dismissed Ali's plea after which he had challenged the order before a sessions court. The sessions court had also dismissed his plea in March 2012.<br /><br />During the adjudication of the complaint case, Ali had alleged before the court that he was abducted by Tarun and Ramesh and Amar Singh had abused and threatened him.<br /><br />The magistrate, however, dismissed Ali's contentions while relying on the probe report filed by the police in which it had said that allegations levelled by the complainant were not corroborated by any independent witness. </p>
<p>A Delhi court has dismissed a criminal complaint filed against Rajya Sabha MP Amar Singh and others for allegedly kidnapping a key witness of the 2008 cash-for-vote case.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The decision came just two months after the former Samajwadi Party leader was given a clean chit by a court in the cash-for-vote case in which he was accused of "conspiring" and "masterminding" attempts to bribe some MPs ahead of a confidence vote in Lok Sabha on July 22, 2008.<br /><br />The court dismissed the complaint filed by Hasmat Ali, who is one of the prime witnesses in the cash-for-vote scam case, saying testimony of the complainant was "unbelievable" as it was not corroborated by any independent witnesses.<br /><br />"In my view the testimony of the complainant, CW1 Hasmat Ali is unbelievable because it is not corroborated by any independent witness...Therefore, his sole testimony is being discredited. In view of the aforesaid, the complaint is dismissed under section 203 of CrPC," Metropolitan Magistrate Jay Thareja said.<br /><br />Amar Singh, who was arrayed as one of the accused in the cash-for-vote scam, was on November 22 last discharged by a court here along with L K Advani's ex-aide Sudheendra Kulkarni and other BJP leaders in the case.<br /><br />Ali had earlier moved a magisterial court seeking lodging of FIR against Singh, his secretary Tarun and Ramesh claiming that he was kidnapped from Khan Market here on September 25, 2008 when he was to depose before a parliamentary inquiry committee probing the case.<br /><br />The magistrate had dismissed Ali's plea after which he had challenged the order before a sessions court. The sessions court had also dismissed his plea in March 2012.<br /><br />During the adjudication of the complaint case, Ali had alleged before the court that he was abducted by Tarun and Ramesh and Amar Singh had abused and threatened him.<br /><br />The magistrate, however, dismissed Ali's contentions while relying on the probe report filed by the police in which it had said that allegations levelled by the complainant were not corroborated by any independent witness. </p>