Delhi riots: Police creating defence for accused; investigation done in callous and farcical manner, says Court

Observing that the case diaries have not been maintained in accordance with the law, the court also said that when two separate complaints disclosing cognizable offences are filed by two different complainants, there are no provisions under which they can be clubbed.

DISMISSING DELHI Police’s revision petition against an order directing it to register an FIR on a Ghonda resident’s complaint alleging that he suffered a gunshot injury in an eye during Northeast Delhi violence, a Delhi Court in order has said that defence of the accused persons has been sought to be created by the police in a different FIR and that police officials have “miserably failed” in their statutory duties in the case.

Imposing a fine of Rs 25,000 on Bhajanpura police station’s Station House Officer and his supervising officers, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav has sent the order to Commissioner of Police “for bringing to his notice” the level of investigation and supervision in the matter and also asked him to take remedial action.

In October 2020, a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) had ordered Delhi Police to register an FIR on Mohammad Nasir’s complaint within 24 hours. On March 19 last year, Nasir in his complaint to the police said that on February 24 in 2020, he was fired upon due to which he suffered a gunshot injury in his left eye. Nasir named Naresh Tyagi, Subhash Tyagi, Uttam Tyagi, Sushil, Naresh Gaur and others in the case. Since no FIR was registered, he had moved the court for FIR.

The police in response had submitted that an FIR already stood registered with regard to the incident of rioting in which it was mentioned that Nasir and six more persons had suffered gunshot injuries on the same date. It also had told the court that no evidence was found against the persons named by Nasir. The police also said Naresh and Uttam were not even present in Delhi at the relevant time and Sushil was present in his office.

However, advocate Mehmood Pracha — Nasir’s counsel — argued before the sessions court that the FIR registered by Delhi Police does not address his grievance and a separate FIR was required to be registered in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

ASJ Yadav in the order passed on Tuesday said that the incident with Nasir happened on the evening of February 24 at North Ghonda but the FIR registered by the Delhi Police on February 25 was in respect of Mohanpur, Maujpur. The court also said that seven persons having received gunshot injuries was in due knowledge of the investigating agency but yet Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act were not invoked at the time of registration of FIR.

While perusing the case diaries, the court said the police on March 17 recorded the arrest of two persons Salman and Sameer Saifi on the bases of secret information that they had caused damage to the life and property of Hindus. “However, name of not a single Hindu victim/injured has been mentioned therein. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that the said area/locality is dominated by Hindus,” said the court.

The court also said that the case diary of June 16, 2020 has been recorded “on a different leaf altogether” as it mentions that “no eye witness could be found’ traced in the matter despite the MLC of respondent (Nasir) clearly showing his address”,

Observing that the case diaries have not been maintained in accordance with the law, the court also said that when two separate complaints disclosing cognizable offences are filed by two different complainants, there are no provisions under which they can be clubbed.

“The grievance of the respondent is analyzed, then it would be clearly apparent that the respondent had set out a “counter version” and the same was not covered within the principle of “sameness”,” reads the order.

The court also said that Delhi High Court Rules have not been followed by the police in the matter and the investigation in the registered FIR has been done in a “most casual, callous and faricial manner”.

“The mandate of the Constitution Bench in case of ‘Lalita Kumari’ has clearly been overlooked in this case and it is clearly evident that defence for the accused persons named in the complaint of respondent has been sought to be created by the police. Even no investigation has apparently been conducted against the named accused Naresh Gaur,” ASJ Yadav said further in the order.

The court also said that the police has no reason, occassion or justification to feel aggrieved by the MM’s order and the persons who could presumably be aggrieved may be the people named in the complaint. “I have not been able to persuade myself about the efficacy and fairness of the investigation carried out in the matter,” it said.

Source: Read Full Article