38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, August 18, 2022
Top Stories
Interviews Know The Law Book Reviews Videos
About Us Contact Us
Crime, Police And Law

Delhi Police moves Delhi HC, opposes trial court judgement imposing Rs 25k fees for 'failure to perform statutory obligations' in investigation

By Saakshi S. Rawat      Jul 29, 2021      0 Comments      1,169 Views

The Delhi Police has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to overturn a trial court judgement, that ordered them to pay Rs 25,000 in costs because police officers had "horribly failed in their statutory responsibilities" in the matter of the Delhi Riots (State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohammad Nasir).

While dropping the Delhi Police's challenge to an order directing the registration of a FIR on the complaint of a man who had suffered an eye injury during the Delhi Riots violence in February 2020, an additional sessions court ordered costs of Rs. 25,000.

The court stated that the officers, absolutely failed in their statutory obligations in this matter after conducting a thorough investigation.

The police’s petition to the High Court stated that the sessions court enforced costs without providing the DCP an opportunity to submit his case, which was contrary to natural justice principles.

The trial court has failed to grasp that implementation of such costs was not only unwarranted but completely inappropriate for, as court hasn't really found the petition frivolous and that such costs would severely impact not only the careers of government officials, but also the credibility of police officers, according to the complaint.

The Supreme Court of India has ordered the lower judiciary to act efficiently to decrease the amount of pendency of cases as the system is afflicted to the level of 70% at lower level, it stated in the case of Kishan Lal Chawla V Union of India, which was decided on March 8, 2021.

The petition also claims that the trial court “clearly failed” to consider the fact that the complainant was a victim whose statement had already been recorded during the investigation, that the supplementary investigation was ongoing in some aspects, and that there was no need for a separate FIR because the offence was the same.

It added, “Because the court has made significant statements against the investigation even before the trial has begun, which is in violation of the basic requirement that no conclusion should be made during the course of the trial. However, in the current case, the trial is yet to begin, and that too without a report of explanation from the IO involved.”

The additional sessions court voiced its unhappiness through its ruling after the police notified the court that there was no need to file a second FIR on Mohammad Nasir's complaint because one had already been filed at PS Bhajanpura on February 25, 2020. [No. 64/2020 FIR].

"The directive of the Delhi High Court Rules, referred to by learned counsel for the respondent, has not been implemented by either the police or learned Illaka MM in the matter, which clearly establishes that the investigation, even in case FIR No.64/2020, PS Bhajanpura, has been done in a most laid back, unempathetic, and farcical manner," the court stated.

Nasir filed a police report on February 24, 2020, after sustaining a gunshot wounded his left eye. He named the people who allegedly attacked him. He alleged, however, that the police did not act on his allegation.

On July 17, 2020, he filed a petition with a magisterial court, which instructed the station house officer (SHO) at PS Bhajanpura to file a new FIR on Nasir's March 19, 2020 allegation on October 21, 2020.

The police, on the other hand, claimed that Nasir's complaint had been "duly redressed" because a FIR had been lodged at PS Bhajanpura on February 25, 2020 under relevant provisions, and that there was no need to file a second FIR. The police, via the prosecutor, also stated that the people mentioned in the respondent's complaint had been extensively examined, and that two of them were not in Delhi at the time.

It was also claimed that respondent had been named as a witness in the FIR and that he might testify in court at a later date. The police also stated that the investigation was still continuing, and that if any other suspects needed to be discovered, a supplemental chargesheet would be submitted.

As a result, the police sought to dismiss the orders issued by the magistrate and the additional sessions court instructing them to file a FIR.

Delhi Riots
Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Related Posts
View All




Lawstreet Advertisement

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email