Delhi Riots- District & Sessions Judge Stays Operation Of Order Imposing 25K Cost On Police Till November 12

The Principal District & Sessions Judge, North East District of Karkardooma Court on Saturday stayed the operation of an order which had imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on Delhi Police after observing that the delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint in a riots case caused undue harassment to the accused persons, two of whom are in judicial custody.

Principal District & Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar stayed the operation of the order passed by Chief Meteorological Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg till November 12, the next date of hearing.

Observing that repeated directions in riots cases had fallen on deaf ears of the Senior police officials, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg had, vide order dated October 12, had directed the Commissioner of Police to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation or prosecution of riots cases and their expeditious trial within a period of seven days.

"Repeated directions have already been issued by this court not only to DCP(NE), Joint Commissioner of Police (Eastern Range) and Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking their personal intervention in the matters pertaining to the North East riots, however, it appears that all the aforesaid directions have fallen on deaf ears," the Court had said.

Challenging the said order, a revision petition was filed by SHO Police Station Bhajanpura wherein arguments was advanced by the prosecution.

"In view of the submissions of Spl. P.P and facts and circumstances of the case, the operation of the impugned order, dated 12.10.2021, is stayed till the next date of hearing," the Court said.

About The Order Passed By CMM

The development came after the CMM perused the status report filed by the IO wherein a prayer was made for granting permission and further time for investigation of the matter and also to investigate the complaint of one Faizan Khan separately.

During they course of hearing, the SPP had submitted that further investigation in the matter was necessary in terms of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated September 10, 2021 wherein it was highlighted that the investigation qua complaint of the complainant namely Akil Ahmad pertaining to the incident could not have been clubbed with the present FIR.

"However, the status report filed by the IO and forwarded by SHO PS Bhajan Pura, tells a different story in as much as it has been stated by the IO that all the complaints received in the present case except the complaint of original complainant Faizan Khan are in respect of the same place of incident,whereas, there is no mention of any specific date and time of incident at the shop of Faizan Khan and hence the same has been segregated. There is no whisper in the aforesaid report regarding the segregation of complaint of complainant Akil Ahmad," the Court had recorded in the order.

The Court was also informed that no case diary was written in the matter after 10.09.2021 and that the supplementary charge sheet qua the complaint of Faizan Khan shall be filed within a period of 3 days.

On this, the Court had said:

"In view of inconsistency in the submissions made on behalf of IO as well as Ld. SPP regarding segregation of investigation qua the complaint of Akil Ahmad on the one hand and of the complainant Faizan Khan on the other, it is apparent that the prosecution is still not sure as to how it should go about further investigation/prosecution in the present case and in the only purpose for seeking permission for further investigation is to derail the further proceedings in the present case."

It had added:

"In the meantime, the request of IO for segregation of the complaint qua the accused Faizan Khan and for further investigation in the present case is allowed,however, considering the delay in moving the present application leading to undue harassment of the accused persons, two of whom are still running in JC, the said request is allowed subject to adjournment cost of Rs. 25,000/­ to be paid by the State to all the seven accused in equal proportion on the next date."

The Court had also directed the Secretary (Home) Union of India to order an inquiry to fix the responsibility for imposition of the cost and deduction of the same from the salary of the responsible officer.

Title: SHO PS Bhajanpura Vs. Neeraj @ Kashi & Ors.

Click Here To Read Order