Delhi riots: Court calls probe ‘callous’, fines 25K on Delhi police

Pulling up the Delhi Police for its conduct, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that the SHO Bhajanpura and other supervising officers have miserably failed in performing their statutory duties.

New Delhi: Observing that the investigation was done in a farcical and casual manner, a Delhi Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on Delhi Police while dismissing a revision plea filed by them challenging an order directing them to register a seperate FIR of one Mohd. Nasir who had recieved injuries in the North East Delhi riots.

Pulling up the Delhi Police for its conduct, Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav observed that the SHO Bhajanpura and other supervising officers have miserably failed in performing their statutory duties.

A criminal revision petition was filed by SHO Bhajanpura challenging the order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate directing it to register a separate FIR on Nasir’s complaint within 24 hours of the order.

MS Education Academy

It was the case of Nasir that during the riots, he had suffered gunshot injury in his left eye after one Naresh Tyagi opened fire upon him. He was taken to the GTB hospital thereafter wherein he was operated and discharged later on 20th March, 2020.

A written complaint was made to SHO Bhajanpura on 19 March last year wherein he had specifically named Naresh Tyagi, Subhash Tyagi, Uttam Tyagi, Sushil, Naresh Gaur and others as the assailants; however, no FIR was registered by the police.

Being aggrieved by this, he had approached the MM Court by way of petition filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C on 17.07.2020.

In the meantime, an FIR was registered by the Delhi Police on the statement of ASI Ashok with regards to incident of rioting in Nasir’s locality stating that besides Nasir, six more persons had suffered gunshot injuries on the said date and time.

It was thus the case of the police, that since an FIR was already registered, there was no need to register separate FIR on Nasir’s compliant as the grievance stands addressed.

It was also submitted that since further investigation in the matter is still on and other persons are identified, the Police said that the supplementary chargesheet in the matter would be filed accordingly.

Hearing the submissions and the material on record, the Court was of the view that:

It was also submitted that since further investigation in the matter is still on and other persons are identified, the Police said that the supplementary chargesheet in the matter would be filed accordingly.

Hearing the submissions and the material on record, the Court was of the view that:

“No separate FIR has been registered on the subsequent complaint of respondent dated 03.07.2020, wherein he clearly stated about the threats to his life being extended by the persons named in his earlier complaint.”

Subscribe us on The Siasat Daily - Google News
Back to top button