A Delhi court while hearing a case in connection with the 2020 northeast Delhi riots has reprimanded an Investigating Officer (IO), accusing the police official of playing games with the court and attempting to deceive it.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala, while hearing arguments on charges against three accused registered by the Dayalpur police station, observed that the IO was hiding crucial information from the court and trying to mislead it.
The judge also noted that the case, which involved four complaints in addition to the first information report (FIR), had one of the complaints filed by Farooq Ahmad, which alleged two separate incidents that occurred on the intervening night of February 25 and 26.
The FIR, on the other hand, was related to a rioting incident that took place at around 9.50 a.m. on February 25, in front of Victoria Public School on Main Wazirabad Road.
“In light of the clubbing of multiple incidents into a single charge-sheet, the court has had to repeatedly deliberate in order to gain a clear understanding and determine, within legal parameters, which allegations the charges should pertain to,” said the judge in a recent order.
The judge observed that the IO had previously stated before the court that the alleged incidents mentioned in Ahmad’s complaint would be investigated separately, and a distinct report would be filed.
However, the judge further noted that despite the court directing the IO to submit a status report in September of last year, the report was never filed but when confronted, the police official informed the court that a separate FIR had not been filed and that only a limited investigation was underway.
The judge expressed confusion regarding the legal framework and procedure being followed in the ongoing investigation, stating, “I am unable to comprehend the specific law and procedure under which this investigation is being conducted without adhering to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).”
The judge further added that “this issue demands significant attention from higher officers, not only to take necessary legal action regarding the pending complaint but also to evaluate the IO’s behaviour and actions thus far”.
The court sought some clarifications from the prosecution, such as the reason for combining the previous incident with this case, and scheduled the matter for future proceedings on May 22.
The court instructed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (northeast) for appropriate action and requested a report from the police officer regarding its findings.