Delhi Police "miserably failed in their statutory duties" while investigating Delhi Riots case: Delhi Court imposes costs of Rs. 25,000

Imposing costs of Rs 25,000, a Delhi Court today dismissed the Delhi Police's challenge to an order directing registration of FIR on the complaint of a man who suffered an eye injury during the Delhi Riots violence in February 2020 (State v. Mohd. Nasir)..The Court noted that the police officials had "miserably failed in their statutory duties in this case after holding a due inquiry in this regard.".Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav expressed displeasure after the Police informed the Court that there was no need to register a separate FIR on the complaint of Mohammad Nasir, as it had already registered an FIR at police station (PS) Bhajanpura on February 25, 2020. [FIR No.64/2020]."The mandate of the Delhi High Court Rules, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent has not been followed by either the police or by learned Illaka MM in the matter, which clearly goes on to establish that the investigation even in case FIR No.64/2020, PS Bhajanpura has been done in a most casual, callous and farcical manner," stated the order..The Court opined that even the mandate of the Supreme Court verdict in Lalita Kumari had "clearly been overlooked" in the present case and it was "clearly evident" that the defence for the accused persons named in Nasir's complaint had been "sought to be created by the police"..Additionally, it also came to the Court's notice that the police didn't register a separate FIR on a subsequent complaint filed by Nasir on July 3, 2020, where he alleged that he was being threatened by the persons named in his earlier complaint..The Court also noticed that the case diaries were not maintained in the matter as per the mandate of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).After suffering a gunshot wound on his left eye on February 24, 2020, Nasir had sent his complaint to the police naming the persons who allegedly attacked him. The Police, however, did not act on his complaint, he claimed.On July 17, 2020, he moved a plea before a magisterial court, which on October 21, 2020, directed the station house officer (SHO) at PS Bhajanpura to register a separate FIR on Nasir's complaint dated March 19, 2020.The Police, however, maintained that the Nasir's grievance "duly stands redressed" as it had registered an FIR at PS Bhajanpura on February 25, 2020 under appropriate sections, and as such, there was no need to register a separate FIR. The Police, through the prosecutor, also claimed that the persons named by the respondent in his complaint had been thoroughly investigated and it came to fore that two of them were not present in Delhi at the relevant time.It was further argued that respondent has been made a witness in the said FIR, and that he could depose before the court at an appropriate stage. The police also contended that further investigation in the matter was ongoing, and in case some other people had to be identified, then a supplementary chargesheet would be filed..Judge Yadav, however, noted that when two separate complaints disclosing cognizable offences are filed by two different complainants, there is no provision under which the investigating agency can club such complaints. He further held,"With a view to satisfy myself as to whether the complaint dated March 19, 2020 of the respondent depicts a separate and distinct cause of action and fact in contradistinction with the facts of FIR No.64/2020, then I find that the cause of action in both the matters is different." The order further observed, "Seeing the matter from any angle, I have not been able to persuade myself about the efficacy and fairness of the investigation carried out in the matter. The investigation in the matter is apparently against the spirit of Babubhai (supra). It is also evident that the petitioner has no reason, occasion or justification to feel aggrieved by the impugned order. The persons who could presumably be aggrieved may be Naresh Gaur, Naresh Tyagi, Subhash Tyagi, Uttam Tyagi, Sushil and their unknown accomplices, but they chose not to file criminal revision against the impugned order." .After not finding any merit in the police's revision plea, the court dismissed it with costs, directing the same be deposited by the DCP (Northeast) with the Delhi Legal Services Authority within one week from July 13."The said 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," it added.Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar Choudhary and Jatin Bhatt represented Nasir, whereas Special Public Prosecutor Rajeev Krishan Sharma represented the State..[Read the order]