Delhi police answerable for failure in discharging statutory duty while investigating riots’ case, says trial court while imposing Rs 25k cost

Read Order: State v. Mohammad Nasir 

LE Staff

New Delhi, July 15, 2021: A Delhi Court has rejected the Delhi Police’s challenge to a lower court order which directed registration of FIR on the complaint of a man who suffered an eye injury during the communal violence in the national capital last year. 

Imposing a cost of Rs 25,000, ASJ Vinod Yadav expressed displeasure over the failure of the police to register a separate FIR on a subsequent complaint filed by the complainant, Nasir, last year when he alleged that he was being threatened by the persons named in his earlier complaint. 

It was found that last year, one Nasir filed a police complaint naming the persons who allegedly attacked him after he suffered a gunshot wound in his left eye. Since the police refused to act, the complainant moved a plea before a magisterial court, which directed the SHO at Bhajanpura to register a separate FIR on the complaint. 

In response to such direction, the police stated that Nasir’s grievance stood duly redressed and persons named in the complaint were thoroughly investigated. Thus, there was no need to register a separate FIR, claimed the Police.  

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. 

The Court noted that the mandate of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari versus Government of UP has clearly been overlooked and it is clearly evident that defence for the accused persons named in the complaint of respondent has been sought to be created by the police. 

“Even no investigation has apparently been conducted against the named accused Naresh Gaur. No separate FIR has been registered on the subsequent complaint of respondent wherein he clearly stated about the threats to his life being extended by the persons named in his earlier complaint,” found the Court. 

With a view to satisfy himself as to whether the complaint of respondent depicts a separate and distinct cause of action and fact in contradistinction with the facts of the FIR, Judge Yadav found that the cause of action in both the matters is different.

Referring to the decision of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr Versus Shaileshbhai Mohan Bhai Patel & Ors, the Court held that a separate FIR against the said persons is liable to be registered after proper investigation in the matter, and if the said persons are charge-sheeted then they will be well within their rights to exhaust their remedies available to them in accordance with law.

Thus, dismissing the revision petition, the District Court charged a cost of Rs.25,000/- to 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.