"Sorry State Of Affairs": Court Expresses Displeasure At Delhi Police Over No Progress In Investigating A Riots Case

Update: 2021-09-28 15:40 GMT

Terming it as a 'sorry state of affairs', a Delhi Court has expressed its displeasure at the Delhi Police over no progress in investigating a riots case and non interrogation of persons named in FIR 134/2020 registered at Gokulpuri Police Station.Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said:"This is really a sorry state of affairs. It is being claimed by the police in other cases of riots that...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Terming it as a 'sorry state of affairs', a Delhi Court has expressed its displeasure at the Delhi Police over no progress in investigating a riots case and non interrogation of persons named in FIR 134/2020 registered at Gokulpuri Police Station.

Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav said:

"This is really a sorry state of affairs. It is being claimed by the police in other cases of riots that the circumstances prevailing during the period of riots and almost four weeks thereafter were really difficult and the police could not investigate the cases properly. Thereafter, Delhi was engulfed in Corona virus pandemic and as such, the quality investigation in the matter could not take place."


"I wonder whether the police can take the same excuse qua the investigation of case FIR No.134/2021, PS Gokalpuri. The answer has to be "clear No"."

The Court was of the view that despite the constitution of a "Special Investigation Cell (SIC)" by Delhi Police Commissioner in order to monitor the ongoing investigations in the riots cases, the present case "had so far not got the attention of either Worthy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police or the SIC constituted by him."

Accordingly, the Court directed thus:

"The learned Special PP is directed to take instructions in the matter and communicate to the Court on the next date of hearing about the investigation carried on by the police in case FIR No.134/2021, PS Gokalpuri and the impact thereof on the consideration of complaint of Nisar Ahmed in the present case, with specific reference to the fact as to whether the said complaint can be considered to be part of the present case or case FIR No. 134/2021, PS Gokalpuri."

One Nisar Ahmed had made the first complaint dated March 4, 2020 on which no action was taken by the police. Accordingly, a second complaint was filed by him claiming that he witnessed the incidents of Delhi riots at two instances.

About the first incident, it was claimed that on 24.02.2020, some persons amongst mob of 200-250 persons, who were allegedly rioting near Gokalpuri pulia toll-tax, had put up a loud-public address system, whereby they were exhorting their fellow community members to allegedly vandalize, rob and put on fire the houses and hops of persons belonging to the other community. It was further alleged that they were claiming that the police was with them.

The second incident was mentioned to be on 25.02.2020, near his house wherein some people among the rioters in the mob of about 50 persons had allegedly put his godown on fire after robbing it.

The FIR was therefore registered by the police on June 7, 2021 after a delay of about two months of passing of the order by Court in a revision petition wherein the State had not challenged the said FIR.

"Today the initial 10 of the aforesaid case as well as the present 10, namely Inspector Jagdish Yadav and Inspector Vineet Pandey are present in Court and both of them have submitted that no progress in the investigation of case FIR No.134/2021, PS Gokalpuri has taken place. The persons named in the FIR have not been interrogated," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court asked the Special Public Prosecutor to take instructions in the matter on the progress of the case. 

"A copy of this order be sent to the Worthy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police for his reference and taking of appropriate steps required in the matter," the Court added.

Title: State V/s Dinesh Yadav @ Michael & Ors.

Click Here To Read Order

Similar News