'Complete Lack Of Supervision By Senior Police Officers': Court Slams Delhi Police Over Manner Of Investigation In Delhi Riots Cases

"The investigating agency has evidently been found to be on the wrong side of law," remarked the Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav at Karkardooma District Courts.

The Judge was hearing a revision petition filed by the Police against an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, directing the authorities to lodge separate FIRs on the complaints made by the Respondent, Nishar Ahmed.

In its order, dismissing the revision, Judge Yadav found that "there was complete lack of supervision of the investigation(s) by the senior police officers" in several cases of riots.

The Judge observed that "all is not over yet" and even if the senior officers look into the matter(s) now and take remedial measures, justice could be given to the victims.

Background

The Respondent, Nishar Ahmed had approached the MM for registration of FIR(s) on his complaints dated 18.03.2020 and 23.05.2020.

In the former complaint, Ahmed had given details of the members of unlawful assembly and their acts committed on two days, i.e. on 24.02.2020 and 25.02.2020. This was clubbed with the complaint of one Aas Mohammad, who had disclosed events that transpired on 25.02.2020.

In the latter complaint, Ahmed levelled allegations of criminal intimidation.

The grievance of the Respondent was that with respect to the first complaint, he was not supplied either the copy of FIR or the copies of chargesheets in three other cases. The second complaint, Ahmed vented, was neither investigated nor any kind of security was provided to him by the police.

Findings

At the outset, the ASJ noted that the MM was right in ordering registration of separate FIR based on complaint dated 18.03.2020.

It observed,

"In a number of cases of riots in North-East Delhi; wherein, several complaints pertaining to a particular area have been clubbed with a single FIR. It has been noticed by this Court that in several cases, as many as twenty five (25) complaints have been clubbed with a single FIR having different dates of incidents, different complainants, different witnesses and different set of accused persons."

The State had argued that it was well within its rights to have clubbed the complaints on the principle of sameness, as laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 384.

Unconvinced, the Judge noted that the Respondent's complaint disclosed the acts of two dates as against the complaint lodged by Aas Mohammad, which disclosed acts of 25.02.2020 alone.

"This Court failed to understand as to how the complaint of respondent dated 18.03.2020 could have been clubbed with case FIR No.78/2020, when this complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offences on two dates by two different unlawful assemblies," the Court said.

It has reiterated that when two separate complaints disclosing cognizable offences are filed by two different complainants, there is no provision under which the investigating agency can club such complaints and carryout investigation.

The Judge also pulled up the authorities for not conducting even semblance of investigation with regard to the criminal conspiracy hatched by the persons named in complaint dated 18.03.2020.

"Even the offence of criminal conspiracy has not been invoked in any of the cases where either the respondent is complainant or witness. There is clear diversions of action/investigation by the police in the cases under consideration," the Judge said.

So far as the second complaint is concerned, lodged on 25.03.2020, the Court noted that clear allegations of criminal intimidation of the respondent by the persons named by him are made out.

"The complaint of respondent dated 23.05.2020 again disclosed a separate cognizable offence and as such, separate FIR(s) on the aforesaid complaints should have been registered by the police.

The respondent in his petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C has given clear allegations against the persons named in complaint dated 18.03.2020 in a tabular format, but the police did not pay any heed thereto and no investigation whatsoever was conducted thereupon," the Judge said.

Case Title: State v. Nishar Ahmed

Appearance: DK Bhatia, Special PP for the State; Advocate MR Shamshad, for Respondent.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order