‘Half-Hearted Attempt, Based On Unfounded Assumptions’: Court Pulls Up Delhi Police For Clubbing Complaint In Delhi Riots Case

A Delhi Court yesterday pulled up the Delhi Police for clubbing a complaint in a Delhi riots case based on “unfounded assumptions” that the incident would have been caused by same accused persons.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts said that a “half-hearted attempt” was made only to show the completion of the investigation.

The judge refused to club a complaint filed by one Rinku in FIR 142 of 2020 registered at Gokalpuri police station.

The Delhi Police’s ASI had filed a second supplementary chargesheet in the FIR on September 25 wherein copy of Rinku’s complaint was filed. It also contained the sanction accorded, site plan in respect of place of incident and statements of Rinku, a constable and a sub-inspector.

The court directed the concerned SHO to take Rinku’s complaint back and register a separate case on it.

“Ld. Special PP submitted that in order to do complete justice with Rinku, it was necessary to investigate that complaint. However, that was not done properly rather a final report of investigation was filed in haste, without carrying out complete investigation,” the court said.

It added: “However, a warning is recorded for SHO and IO that they must follow the law u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C. before indulging into any further investigation after filing of the chargesheet before the court, in a case.”

While filing the first chargesheet, the Delhi Police mentioned that two complaints made by Poonam Johar and Rinku were clubbed for investigation in the FIR in March 2020, on the ground that the place of occurrence of both incidents was nearby.

However, it was reported that Rinku was not found despite making investigation from neighbours and nearby place.

On this, the judge said that the IO could not find anything at the time of filing first chargesheet to assume that the incident allegedly taken place with Rinku was caused by the accused persons who were being chargesheeted through first chargesheet.

“There was no basis for the IO to club investigation report on the complaint of Rinku in the present case, which was based on the complaint of Mr. Narender Kumar. It was so done under this FIR, on the basis of unfounded assumptions that same would have been caused by same set of accused persons,” the court said.

Furthermore, the judge added that when the IO found nothing while filing the first chargesheet in respect of Rinku’s complaint, then his complaint should have been separated from the FIR in question for registration of separate FIR.

“In what circumstances and on what basis such additions were made in this complaint, is nowhere explained in any of the chargesheets including the latest supplementary chargesheet,” the court said.

It added: “In fact, I find that in the name of investigating this complaint, a half-hearted attempt has been made only to show the completion of the investigation. This complaint is, therefore, not to be entertained in the present case.”