FIR On Noida Hate Crime Complaint Registered After 1.5 Years : Supreme Court Expresses 'Distress' At UP Police Laxity

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed dissatisfaction at the laxity shown by the Uttar Pradesh Police in registering an FIR in the Noida hate crime case of July 2021, in which a 62-year old Muslim man complained that he was pulled inside a car by a group of four men, was beaten up, pulled by his beard, assaulted and communal slurs were hurled against him.The Court noted with "distress" that the FIR was registered only on January 15, 2023, almost one and a half year after the date of the incident- July 4, 2021. The Court further noted that the FIR was registered only after the last date of hearing(January 13), when the Court had directed the State of UP- which had been denying that it was a hate crime- to produce the case diary. On Monday, a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagrarathna heard the matter for over ninety minutes from 4.15 PM, beyond the regular sitting hours.Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that immediately after the incident, he went to the nearest police station in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. However, his complaint was not registered by the police. He had to run from pillar to post. He later had to move the Supreme Court and yet the State of UP never accepted that there was a hate crime aspect involved in the entire incident and neither was an FIR registered in the case.It was also pointed out to the court that the first reply by the State of UP said that this was a false case.Ahmadi said, “First you denied that this incident ever happened and did not register an FIR, then after a year in July 2022, the State of UP in its first counter said this is a false case. Then this court ordered for production of the case diary. Then another counter affidavit was filed…It was only after the order passed by this court for production of the case diary that the FIR was registered after one and a half years on 15-01-2023…even that FIR is a diluted FIR since most of the offences are bailable barring one. 153A which is a stringent section is not added, section 295A would be attracted. Other provisions such as 362, 365, 501, 505(1)(c) these are all attracted in the FIR.”Ahmadi later also stressed, “They are yet to probe the incident but continue to deny any hate crime angle involved. What investigation can we expect at all from them? Let me assume for a moment against myself that there was no hate crime involved, but why was an FIR not lodged on the morning of the 4th(July 4, 2021) when the petitioner visited the police station? There was at least the commission of a crime.”The State of UP had submitted an affidavit suggesting to the court that the incident was not a hate crime but was carried out by a gang known as "screw driver gang" and that there is no religious angle involved in the case.Ahmadi pointed out that the complaint shows elements of hate-crime but yet the State was maintaining denial. “This sort of affidavit is being filed by a functionary of the State of UP before this court. How do I expect a fair investigation from them? There is really no will to prosecute. There is enough evidence to prove this.”Some lapses are there, UP concedesAdditional Solicitor General KM Natraj appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh started off by conceding that there were lapses on the part of the state police and that necessary disciplinary action would be taken against the guilty officials. He said that such incidents cannot be encouraged. He also further informed the court that an inquiry committee had already been set up and an inquiry is currently undergoing.“We have formed an SIT and started an inquiry and also we presume there was a crime. 8 cases have been registered against this gang. This is their routine way of acting. They do this in this particular manner. They were arrested by the State police. They have been granted bail by the High Court.”When the bench, during today’s hearing, asked Ahmadi to explain what a hate crime was, as it had not been defined under the Indian laws, Ahmadi said, “if an abuse is made on on the basis of religion, caste etc..then it is hate crime as per the Tehseen Poonawaala judgment.”At this point Justice Joseph stopped Ahmadi and asked, “what do you want from us?”Ahmadi replied and said that he was seeking for three specific reliefs. “Firstly, I want a declaration that the state of Uttar Pradesh must be held guilty of committing a constitutional tort in the sense that it has failed to protect a citizen and implement the rule of law. The minimum of rule of law is registering of an FIR. There is complete violation of breach of care in this case. Secondly, in this case your lordships should set an example and there should be some kind of reparation by the state of UP as this court may deem fit which is justiciable to some extent. Finally, all stringent sections have been eschewed from the FIR for reasons not too difficult to see. FIR says hate crime but in additional affidavit they say no hate crime…there is no will to prosecute…,in...

FIR On Noida Hate Crime Complaint Registered After 1.5 Years : Supreme Court Expresses 'Distress' At UP Police Laxity

Anurag Tiwary

Tags