NEW DELHI: Expressing ‘extreme displeasure’ on the conduct of an investigating officer (IO) in relation to a case of the 2020 Delhi riots, a city court said the cop was playing ‘a game of hide and seek’ and trying to mislead it. A report from the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) was also sought by the court.
Dealing the case registered by Dayalpur police station against three accused, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala of Delhi’s Karkardooma court observed that in addition to the first information report (FIR), the case pertained to four complaints.
One of the complaints by Farooq Ahmad mentioned two separate alleged incidents on the intervening night of February 25 and 26, while the FIR was regarding a rioting incident around 9.50 am on February 25 in front of Victoria Public School on Main Wazirabad road, as per the court. ‘Due to the clubbing of several incidents in one chargesheet, it had been a matter of deliberation by the court time and again, so as to have a clear-cut picture in order to decide within the parameters of law for what allegations the charges are to be decided,’ the order read.
It was also observed by the judge that the IO’s earlier statement, according to which the alleged incidents pertaining to Ahmad’s complaint would be separately investigated, and a separate report regarding the same would be filed.
The judge said after the court directed him to file a status report in September last year, the IO did not submit the report, and when confronted again, the police officer informed the court that no separate FIR was registered, and that ‘some investigation’ was being conducted. ‘I fail to understand, under which particular law and following which particular procedure of law, such investigation is going on, without resorting to Section 154 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC)...,’ the judge said.
Section 154 of CrPC provides for the registration of an FIR if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The judge further said, ‘Moreover, from the conduct of IO, it is well apparent that till date he had been trying to play a game of hide and seek from this court and to mislead the court in respect of proposed actions.’