Court Pulls up Police for Clubbing 19 Complaints in 1 FIR in Delhi Riots Case

The Karkardooma Court has slammed the Delhi Police for “wrongly clubbing” 19 complaints in a Delhi riots case in one FIR and “not completely and properly” investigating them.

The court ordered the police to investigate the incidents separately.

Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala observed 20 different incidents were taken up for investigation in one FIR, but none of the investigating officers (IOs) asked the two alleged eyewitnesses [primary complainant and a head constable] about the 19 additional incidents, LiveLaw reported.

“Therefore, it is well apparent that practically, except for examining the 19 additional complainants, no other investigation was made to find out time of those occurrences as well as culprits behind those incidents,” Judge Pramachala further observed. 

Acquitting one Sandeep Kumar of the charges of rioting and unlawful assembly in FIR 66 of 2020 registered at Karawal Nagar Police Station, the court said that it “shall be injustice with the 19 additional complainants if fate of their complaints is decided by this court in the present case”.

The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by one Shokin alleging that his house and shop were torched by a mob.

The IO clubbed 19 other complaints in the case on the grounds of proximity of place of incidents and area.

“I fail to understand as to how could police file chargesheet and untrace report together in this case. This was a wrong practice because the complaints other than made by Shokeen were clubbed for investigation in this case without having sound basis to do the same,” the court added.

Regarding untrace or closure report, every complainant has been vested with some rights to make his representation before the concerned MM against such report, Judge Pramachala observed.

“In the present case, due to several complaints wrongly taken up together in one FIR for investigation and filing one composite report of investigation for all such complaints, this important right of complainants could not be exercised by them,” the court said.

While Shokin had deposed that he was informed by his neighbour thatrioters had vandalised his house,the neighbour was not produced before the court.

“In view of above-mentioned circumstances, I find that there is only circumstantial evidence on the record to show that premises of PW5 was vandalised and looted by a mob,” the court said.

“I also find that additional 19 complaints were wrongly clubbed in this FIR and were not completely and properly investigated,” Judge Pramachala added.

Earlier last month, the same court pulled up the Delhi Police for clubbing a complaint based on “unfounded assumptions” that the incident would have been caused by same accused persons and termed it a “half-hearted attempt” made only to show the completion of the investigation, LiveLaw had reported.

Judge Pulastya refused to club a complaint filed by one Rinku in FIR 142 of 2020, registered at the Gokalpuri Police Station.

An assistant sub-inspector (ASI) had filed a second supplementary chargesheet in the FIR on September 25 wherein copy of Rinku’s complaint was filed. It also contained the sanction accorded, site plan in respect of place of incident and statements of Rinku, a constable and an SI.

Directing the concerned station house (SHO) officer to take Rinku’s complaint back and register a separate case on it, the court said: “Ld. Special PP submitted that in order to do complete justice with Rinku, it was necessary to investigate that complaint. However, that was not done properly rather a final report of investigation was filed in haste without carrying out complete investigation.”

The court warned the SHO and IO to “follow the law u/s. 173(8) CrPC before indulging into any further investigation after filing of the chargesheet before the court in a case”.

In the first chargesheet, the police mentioned that two complaints made by one Poonam Johar and Rinku were clubbed for investigation in the FIR in March 2020 on the ground that the place of occurrence of both incidents was nearby.

However, it was reported that Rinku was not found despite making investigation from neighbours and nearby place. The IO could not find anything at the time of filing first chargesheet to assume that the incident allegedly taken place with Rinku was caused by the accused persons who were being charge-sheeted through first chargesheet, the court said.

“There was no basis for the IO to club investigation report on the complaint of Rinku in the present case, which was based on the complaint of Mr Narender Kumar. It was so done under this FIR on the basis of unfounded assumptions that same would have been caused by same set of accused persons,” the court said.

Besides, since the IO found nothing while filing the first chargesheet in respect of Rinku’s complaint, his complaint should have been separated from the FIR in question for registration of separate FIR, the Judge observed.

“In what circumstances and on what basis such additions were made in this complaint is nowhere explained in any of the chargesheets, including the latest supplementary chargesheet,” the court said.

“In fact, I find that in the name of investigating thiscomplaint, a half-hearted attempt has been made only to show the completion of the investigation. This complaint is, therefore, not to be entertained in the present case.”