DISMISSING DELHI Police’s revision petition in opposition to an order directing it to register an FIR on a Ghonda resident’s grievance alleging that he suffered a gunshot damage in an eye fixed throughout Northeast Delhi violence, a Delhi Court docket so as has mentioned that defence of the accused individuals has been sought to be created by the police in a distinct FIR and that police officers have “miserably failed” of their statutory duties within the case.
Imposing a tremendous of Rs 25,000 on Bhajanpura police station’s Station Home Officer and his supervising officers, Further Classes Decide Vinod Yadav has despatched the order to Commissioner of Police “for bringing to his discover” the extent of investigation and supervision within the matter and likewise requested him to take remedial motion.
In October 2020, a Metropolitan Justice of the Peace (MM) had ordered Delhi Police to register an FIR on Mohammad Nasir’s grievance inside 24 hours. On March 19 final yr, Nasir in his grievance to the police mentioned that on February 24 in 2020, he was fired upon as a consequence of which he suffered a gunshot damage in his left eye. Nasir named Naresh Tyagi, Subhash Tyagi, Uttam Tyagi, Sushil, Naresh Gaur and others within the case. Since no FIR was registered, he had moved the court docket for FIR.
The police in response had submitted that an FIR already stood registered with regard to the incident of rioting wherein it was talked about that Nasir and 6 extra individuals had suffered gunshot accidents on the identical date. It additionally had instructed the court docket that no proof was discovered in opposition to the individuals named by Nasir. The police additionally mentioned Naresh and Uttam weren’t even current in Delhi on the related time and Sushil was current in his workplace.
Nevertheless, advocate Mehmood Pracha — Nasir’s counsel — argued earlier than the classes court docket that the FIR registered by Delhi Police doesn’t tackle his grievance and a separate FIR was required to be registered in view of the legislation laid down by the Supreme Court docket.
ASJ Yadav within the order handed on Tuesday mentioned that the incident with Nasir occurred on the night of February 24 at North Ghonda however the FIR registered by the Delhi Police on February 25 was in respect of Mohanpur, Maujpur. The court docket additionally mentioned that seven individuals having obtained gunshot accidents was in due data of the investigating company however but Part 307 of IPC and Part 25 of Arms Act weren’t invoked on the time of registration of FIR.
Whereas perusing the case diaries, the court docket mentioned the police on March 17 recorded the arrest of two individuals Salman and Sameer Saifi on the bases of secret info that that they had triggered harm to the life and property of Hindus. “Nevertheless, title of not a single Hindu sufferer/injured has been talked about therein. Be that as it could, it’s an admitted undeniable fact that the mentioned space/locality is dominated by Hindus,” mentioned the court docket.
The court docket additionally mentioned that the case diary of June 16, 2020 has been recorded “on a distinct leaf altogether” because it mentions that “no eye witness might be discovered’ traced within the matter regardless of the MLC of respondent (Nasir) clearly displaying his tackle”,
Observing that the case diaries haven’t been maintained in accordance with the legislation, the court docket additionally mentioned that when two separate complaints disclosing cognizable offences are filed by two totally different complainants, there are not any provisions underneath which they are often clubbed.
“The grievance of the respondent is analyzed, then it might be clearly obvious that the respondent had set out a “counter model” and the identical was not coated inside the precept of “sameness”,” reads the order.
The court docket additionally mentioned that Delhi Excessive Court docket Guidelines haven’t been adopted by the police within the matter and the investigation within the registered FIR has been achieved in a “most informal, callous and faricial method”.
“The mandate of the Structure Bench in case of ‘Lalita Kumari’ has clearly been missed on this case and it’s clearly evident that defence for the accused individuals named within the grievance of respondent has been sought to be created by the police. Even no investigation has apparently been performed in opposition to the named accused Naresh Gaur,” ASJ Yadav mentioned additional within the order.
The court docket additionally mentioned that the police has no motive, occassion or justification to really feel aggrieved by the MM’s order and the individuals who might presumably be aggrieved could be the individuals named within the grievance. “I’ve not been capable of persuade myself concerning the efficacy and equity of the investigation carried out within the matter,” it mentioned.