Capital’s Karkardooma Court rejects police’s plea, imposes Rs. 25,000 cost on cops and order them to file a separate FIR on the complaints of riot victim Mohammad Nasir
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — A Delhi court has dismissed a petition by police challenging the court direction for filing an FIR on the complaint of Delhi riots victim Mohammad Nasir who lost his eye in the violence. Judge Vinod Yadav at Karkardooma court also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 against the police over the “callous and farcical” investigation into the complaint.
The court lambasted the police saying that the petitioner, SHO of Bhajanpura police station and his supervising officers, ‘had miserably failed in their statutory duties in this case’.
“I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The same accordingly stands dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) which shall be deposited with Delhi Legal Services Authority by DCP (Northeast) within one week from today.” The judge also ordered that the amount shall be recovered from the petitioner and his supervising officers, “who have miserably failed in their statutory duties in this case after holding a due inquiry in this regard,” as per news published in the Live Law news portal.
According to the Indian Express, Nasir had filed a complaint before the police on 19 March 2020 alleging that on 24 February 2020, when large-scale communal violence had gripped parts of the national capital, he was fired up which caused grievous injury to his eye. The complainant named a number of people while adding that he was targetted for his Muslim identity.
The police ignored his complaint, forcing Nasir to move to the court. In October 2020, a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) had ordered the police to file the FIR in the matter within 24 hours.
On 29 October 2020 Additional Sessions Judge Yadav stayed the FIR while police had filed a revision plea.
According to the Indian Express, the police in response had submitted that an FIR already stood registered with regard to the incident of rioting in which it was mentioned that Nasir and six more persons had suffered gunshot injuries on the said date. It, however, also had told the court no evidence was found against the persons named by Nasir, and that two of them were not even present in Delhi at the time.
Nasir’s lawyer Mehmood Paracha, however, told the court that the FIR does not address the plight of Nasir urging that the police should be directed to file a fresh case as he cited the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
The court order of Tuesday underlines that Nasir was injured on February 24 at North Ghonda while an FIR registered on February 25 concerned the incidents in Mohanpur, Maujpur. The court also asked why Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act were not invoked in the case of gunshot injuries to seven persons even though the investigating officer had the information.
The court also raised questions on the arrest of two persons, Salman and Sameer Saifi on the basis of secret information alleging that they had damaged properties of Hindus. “However, name of not a single Hindu victim/injured has been mentioned therein. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that the said area/locality is dominated by Hindus,” said the court.
The court further asked as to why the case diary dated 16 June 2020 claimed that no eyewitness could be found in the matter despite the MLC of respondent (Nasir) clearly showing his address.
The court said that there was no provision under which two separate complaints could be clubbed when they are filed by two different complaints in a case of cognizable offense.
Reprimanding the police official, the court said that the rules, as laid down by the Delhi High Court in Lalita Kumari case, were flouted in the investigation which was done in “most casual, callous and farcical manner”