‘Callous attitude’: Delhi court pulls up cops in riots case | Delhi News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court said it was “quite pained” by the “callous attitude” of police on a complaint related to the alleged burning and desecration of a mosque during the northeast Delhi riots in February last year.
The complaint filed by Haji Hashim Ali alleged that on February 25, 2020, a mob of 20-25 people, armed with sticks, rods, petrol bombs and acid, broke into Madina Masjid at Shiv Vihar and destroyed everything they could lay their hands on. Police clubbed Ali’s complaint with another FIR (no. 72/ 2020) registered on the complaint of one Naresh Chand regarding the burning of his house, in which Ali was named as an accused, thus making Ali also a complainant.
Court: Strange that complainant in riot case an accused too
Ali was arrested in the case but subsequently got bail.
Following this, he approached the magistrate court seeking registration of a separate FIR, which was allowed when police told the court that FIR 72/2020 had Ali’s complaint too.
Police challenged this before the sessions court and informed that they had already filed an FIR (no. 55/ 2020) in the Madina Masjid arson case before Ali had approached the court.
Additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav said police were not even aware that an FIR had already been registered at Karawal Nagar police station when Ali approached the magistrate court. “This prima facie reflects the callous attitude/negligence on the part of the investigating agency, as it was incumbent upon it to have placed complete material before the learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate (North East). This court is quite pained to see the lackadaisical attitude adopted by the investigating agency in the matter,” added the order.
Noting that the magistrate court had not committed any flaw as its order to file an FIR on Ali’s complaint was based on insufficient material, the sessions court remanded back the case to it to consider the matter afresh.
The sessions court also noted that it was “really strange” that Ali was not only the complainant in FIR 72/2020, but also an accused, which was an “apparent absurdity”.
Advocate M R Shamshad, appearing for Ali, claimed that various wrong status reports were submitted before the court and police had disclosed the second FIR (55/ 2020) exactly a year later.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *