Delhi Riots: Court Slams Delhi Police For Wrongly Clubbing 19 Complaints In One FIR, Orders Separate Probe

A Delhi Court has slammed the Delhi Police for wrongly clubbing 19 complaints in a Delhi riots case without having any sound basis and ordered that the incidents be investigated separately.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts observed that there were 20 different places of different incidents taken up for investigation in one FIR, but none of the IOs bothered to ask the two alleged eye witnesses [primary complainant and a head constable] about 19 additional incidents.

“Therefore, it is well apparent that practically, except for examining the 19 additional complainants, no other investigation was made, to find out time of those occurrences as well as culprits behind those incidents. In such circumstances, it shall be injustice with the 19 additional complainants, if fate of their complaints is decided by this court in the present case,” the court said.

The judge made the observations while acquitting one Sandeep Kumar of the charges of rioting and unlawful assembly in FIR 66 of 2020 registered at Karawal Nagar Police Station.

The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by one Shokin alleging that his house and shop were set on fire by a mob during the 2020 riots. During further investigation, on the grounds of proximity of place of incidents and area, the investigating officer clubbed 19 other complaints in the case.

“I fail to understand as to how could police file chargesheet and untrace report together in this case. This was a wrong practice, because the complaints other than made by Shokeen were clubbed for investigation in this case, without having sound basis to do the same,” the court said.

It added that regarding untrace or closure report, every complainant has been vested with some rights to make his representation before the concerned MM against such report.

“In the present case, due to several complaints wrongly taken up together in one FIR for investigation and filing one composite report of investigation for all such complaints, this important right of complainants could not be exercised by them,” the court said.

While acquitting Kumar, the judge said that the complainant Shokin had deposed that he was informed by his neighbour that after he left his house, the rioters had vandalized his house. However, the neighbour was not produced before the court.

“In view of above-mentioned circumstances, I find that there is only circumstantial evidence on the record to show that premises of PW5 was vandalized and looted by a mob,” the court said.

It added, “I also find that additional 19 complaints were wrongly clubbed in this FIR and were not completely and properly investigated.”