‘Unfortunate That Delhi Police Yet To Probe Complaint Even After 3 Yrs’: Court Asks DCP To Ensure Speedy Probe Into 2020 Delhi Riots Complaints

Questioning Delhi Police for failing to probe a complaint relating to a 2020 North-East Delhi riots case even after almost three years of the alleged incident, a Delhi Court has asked the DCP to ensure that all complaints received in respect of the riots are investigated and concluded at the earliest.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala “reminded” the police that it is their duty as the investigating agency to probe into any such complaint and take them to a legitimate end.

“Matter is hence referred to ld. DCP, N/E to take immediate steps to ensure that all the complaint received in respect of any incident arising out of riot in the year 2020, be investigated at the earliest possible time and the investigation is concluded at the earliest possible time,” the judge ordered.

The complaint in question was filed by on Shehraj Alam. The court noted that the it is yet to be investigated "because IO is is still in doldrum as to in which particular FIR of this complaint is to be investigated."

Terming it an "unfortunate scenario that even after almost 3 years of alleged incident" the police is yet to start a formal investigation, the court said:

"I need not inform that the same investigation agency has registered a number of FIR on the basis of different complaints and I am unable to comprehend any reason for the same agency to [NOT] register fresh FIR if IO is unable to find any other FIR related to incident of same place, date and time."

The court was dealing with FIR 103/2020 registered at Khajuri Khas police station involving various accused persons.

The accused are: Iqbal, Taiyab, Israr, Rizwan, Adil, Shamim, Maruf, Juber, Farman, Shahbuddin, Ashok, Bharat Bhushan, Abdul Wahab, Faeem, Shehjad, Mohd. Asif, Parvez Ahmed, Jarif Ahmed, Mohd. Irfan and Imran.

The investigating officer had filed a status report stating that a supplementary chargesheet will be filed against two accused persons in the matter. As per the IO, few complaints received were attached in another FIR. 

The court ordered that the IO must take steps to file the supplementary chargesheet within a period of two days, adding that arguments on charge would only be heard after receiving all reports of the investigation.

The judge also cancelled bail of the accused Imran after the non bailable warrants issued against him were received back unreturned with the report that he is in custody in another FIR. However, the court noted that no such information was given about accused being in custody on the last date of hearing.

“Ideally such information should have been furnished in the form of application to this Court even prior to 23.12.2022. Even counsel for Mohd. Irfan did not bother to appear on the last date of hearing and in these circumstances the Court cannot be dependent on sweet will of surety as well as of ld. counsel of such accused persons to ensure appearance of the accused. In these circumstances, bail of accused Imran is canceled, Production warrant be issued against the accused as per particulars mentioned above,” the court added.

Bail was also cancelled of another accused Faheem after his counsel failed to inform the court as to why he had appeared late before the court on the last date of hearing nor any application was moved after producing him.

“Coming to the Court at belated time cannot be sufficient performance of duty for any accused even otherwise and in these circumstances bail of accused Faeem is also canceled and he is taken into custody,” the court said.

The matter has now been listed on February 1 for receiving the compliance report.

Click Here To Read Order