Forming a prima facie opinion that there was negligence on part of the investigating agency, a Delhi Court on Tuesday pulled up the Delhi Police for its "lackadaisical attitude" for not being aware that a separate FIR was already registered in relation to the Madina Masjid vandalism case.
Allowing the revision petition filed by the Delhi Police, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav sent back the matter to the ACMM Court in order to apply it's mind in a holistic manner in view of the disclosure of a separate FIR.
The matter pertained to one Hashim Ali, who was subsequently made an accused by the police after tagging his complaint with another FIR alleging theft, destruction of property and arson.
"This prima facie reflects the callous attitude/negligence on the part of the investigating agency, as it was incumbent upon it to have placed complete material before the learned ACMM (North-East). This Court is quite pained to see the lackadaisical attitude adopted by the investigating agency in the matter." The Court said.
Furthermore, it said:
"The police was not even aware that an FIR No.55/2020 has already been registered at PS Karawal Nagar by the time respondent had approached the court of learned ACMM (North-East) with his petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The investigating agency was duty bound to have apprised the learned ACMM (North-East) of the entire facts and place complete material before it, which admittedly has not been done."
It was Ali's case that riots broke out in New Delhi's Shiv Vihar on 25th February last year wherein a mob had put on fire two LPG cylinders lying inside the Madina Masjid, resulting in an explosion and huge fire, thereby causing substantial damage to Madina Masjid.
Furthermore, it was alleged that one person from the mob climbed on the top of Madina Masjid and hoisted saffron flag atop it by chanting communal/religious slogans.
Meanwhile, an FIR was registered by Police on the basis of a written complaint by one Naresh Chand alleging that a riotous mob had caused damaged to his house. Ali was arrested in the FIR and was subsequently granted bail by the Court in May this year.
After being released on bail, Ali had made a written complaint to the Delhi Police on 25th June 2021. His complaint was clubbed with the FIR in which he was an accused and no separate FIR was registered on his complaint.
The ACMM vide order dated 1st February 2021 directed the Delhi Police to register a separate FIR on the complaint of Ali. The said order was challenged by the Police in revision petition.
During the course of hearing, the Court was apprised by the Delhi Police that a seperate FIR was already lying registered regarding the Madina Masjid vandalism. It was also stated that the grievance of Ali was duly redressed in the matter.
Pulling up the Delhi Police for wanting to approach the ACMM Court again for holistic consideration of entire material on the basis of the seperate FIR, the Court said:
"Had this fact been brought to the notice of learned ACMM (North-East) during the consideration on the petition of the respondent under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, then the outcome of the impugned order could have been different."
"The police was not even aware that an FIR No.55/2020 has already been registered at PS Karawal Nagar by the time respondent had approached the court of learned ACMM (North-East) with his petition under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The investigating agency was duty bound to have apprised the learned ACMM (North-East) of the entire facts and place complete material before it, which admittedly has not been done." The Court said.
Accordingly, the Court sent back the case diaries of both the FIRs to the ACMM for looking afresh into the matter.
Title: State v. Haji Hashim Ali