Delhi High Court criticised the Delhi Police for “selective and poor investigations” in a 2020 Delhi riots shooting case involving a Muslim victim. The Court quashed a separate FIR but noted major lapses, saying further investigation can still be sought.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently criticised the way the Delhi Police investigated a case related to the alleged shooting of a Muslim man, Mohammad Nasir, during the 2020 Delhi riots.
The case came before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in where the Court quashed a magistrate’s order directing the registration of a separate FIR for the incident.
The Court explained that a general FIR was already registered for the violence in the Ghonda area, and Nasir’s gunshot injury had already been noted in that original FIR. Because of this, the High Court held that there was no need for another FIR.
ALSO READ: 2020 Riots Case | Investigation and Charge Sheets Complete Mess: Court Slams Prosecution
The Court pointed out that the complainant had approached the magistrate only after the police had given a clean chit to the accused by saying that they were not present in Delhi at the time of the violence.
Later, however, the complainant found another riots-related FIR where the same accused individuals were named, which clearly showed that they were present in Delhi on the date of the incident. This raised doubts about the earlier police investigation.
The Court observed that the main issue raised by the complainant was the poor quality of the police investigation in FIR No. 64/2020.
The Court said that important steps were not taken by the Investigating Officer, even though the injured persons were found in the hospital and their medical records were collected. While criticising the lapses, the Court stated,
“It, therefore, emerges that the main grievance is in regard to the investigations not being conducted properly in the FIR No. 64/2020. This is also evident from the fact that despite the Mohd. Nasir and other injured found present in the Hospital and their MLCs were collected, their statements were not recorded on the pretext that they were not willing to give their statements. No apparent effort was made by the I.O., to record their statements even subsequently.”
Referring to the gaps and contradictions in the investigation, the Court made a strong remark, stating,
“It is evident that there is selective and poor investigations conducted in the FIR.”
ALSO READ: 2020 Riots || “Being Prosecuted Twice for the Same Speech”: Sharjeel Imam To Delhi HC
However, the Court also clarified that the complainant still had legal remedies within the same FIR. The Court explained that further investigation can be requested, or the complainant can use available legal options if new evidence comes forward.
The Court added,
“Or else the named accused can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage at the appropriate stage whose name may emerge in the evidence as accused or the Complainant can file a Protest Petition and seek further investigations in the FIR, on the aspects which have not been investigated.”
After considering the matter, the High Court quashed the magistrate’s order for registering a second FIR.
The order had previously been challenged by the Delhi Police before a sessions court, but the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the magistrate’s direction and even imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the DCP, North East, due to the poor investigation.
Both accused Naresh Tyagi and the Delhi Police then approached the High Court.
While deciding the petitions, the High Court removed the references made by the Additional Sessions Judge to the case diary and ordered that those references must not be used during the trial.
The Court also discussed the overall quality of the investigation. Although it found several gaps, it held that there was no proof that the lapses were intentional.
Therefore, the High Court set aside the cost of Rs 25,000 imposed on the DCP. The Court stated,
“While it cannot be overlooked that the investigations had various gaps and had not been conducted diligently, but there is nothing to show that it was done intentionally.”
ALSO READ: 2020 Delhi Riots: Court Convicts 6 Men for Rioting, Arson and Unlawful Assembly
Advocates Vikas Arora and Radhika Arora represented accused Naresh Tyagi. Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair, along with advocates Dhruv Pandey and Alok Dubey, appeared for the Delhi Police.
Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar, Jatin Bhatt, Kshitij Singh, Sadia Sultan, Nujhat Naseem and Sikander represented complainant Mohammad Nasir.
Case Title:
Naresh Tyagi vs State & Ors.
Read Order:
Read More Reports On 2020 Riots
