Heated Exchange Between Minister Vij and Kaithal SP at Grievance Meeting

A public confrontation between Haryana Power Minister Anil Vij and Kaithal Superintendent of Police Upasana during Friday's District Grievance Redressal Committee meeting has sparked controversy after video footage circulated on social media showing the tense exchange.

The Fraud Case Dispute

The clash erupted during a hearing on a fraud complaint filed by Manjit Singh of Siwan Gate, who alleged police inaction in registering an FIR regarding cheating in arrangements to send his daughter abroad. Investigating Officer Om Parkash explained the fraud occurred in Chandigarh, so the case had been forwarded there. This explanation irritated Vij, who insisted a zero-FIR must be registered in Kaithal regardless of jurisdiction. When the IO claimed the complainant wanted to pursue the case in Chandigarh, Vij demanded written proof. "Did the complainant give this in writing? Show me," he said sharply.

Direct Confrontation

Vij called the complainant directly during the meeting. After speaking with him, the minister declared the complainant did want Kaithal police to act and had accused them of delays. This triggered a heated exchange with the investigating officer. "Sir, you are not doing justice. You are spoiling my career. I am not responsible for not registering the FIR," the officer protested. Vij shot back, "I am doing justice." 

The minister escalated quickly: "You have not registered the case. I told you to register it in the last meeting. File the FIR before this meeting ends. Otherwise, I will suspend you."

SP's Position 

The confrontation expanded when Vij questioned SP Upasana about why police failed to follow his directives. "How can you defy my order when I have directed the registration of FIR?" he demanded.

SP Upasana responded that police were following proper procedures under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, noting the complainant had not yet filed a written complaint with signature at Kaithal police station. When Vij showed a complaint filed with the Grievance Committee, the SP maintained the complainant needed to come personally to sign it before registration could proceed.

Vij had initially ordered the suspension of the investigating officer, but it was revoked after SP Upasana explained the officer's service record. He then ordered that the FIR should be filed without any further delay, while keeping the matter pending for review. The FIR was registered later that evening, SP Upasana confirmed.

Overview of the meeting

Vij presided over the District Grievance Redressal Committee, which heard 15 complaints—nine old and six new—of which quite a few were sorted out then and there. This case was distinctive for the public nature of the confrontation and the procedural questions it raised about zero-FIR registration and jurisdictional complaints. The incident has highlighted tensions between political oversight and police procedures, particularly in how complaints should be processed when forwarded between jurisdictions.