NEW DELHI: A Delhi sessions court has set aside a magistrate’s directive for a further probe into Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra’s alleged role in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, terming the order “fundamentally flawed, illegal, and improper.”
Special Judge (PC Act) Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts on Monday quashed the April 1 order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasiya, which had directed Delhi Police to investigate Mishra’s alleged involvement in the violence.
“It is set aside regarding the direction for further investigation into the incident mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, which is referred to as the ‘first incident’ in the impugned order,” the court stated.
The case stemmed from a plea filed by Mohammad Ilyas, a resident of Yamuna Vihar, who had sought the registration of an FIR against Mishra. Ilyas alleged that he saw Mishra and others blocking a road in Kardampuri and vandalising vendors’ carts during the riots, claiming that a police officer was also present at the scene.
In his April order, Magistrate Chaurasiya had criticised the Delhi Police’s investigation into the riots, observing that “many questionable assumptions, guesswork and interpretations” had been used to build the theory that the violence was a pre-planned conspiracy by anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protestors.
He remarked, “Once these flaws are outlined, therefore the theory goes off and so does the lens with which prosecution seeks to interpret the facts.” He had also questioned several police arguments, including the claim that women were positioned at the forefront of anti-CAA protests to deter police action and facilitate mass violence, saying these “can be interpreted otherwise.”
Both Kapil Mishra and the Delhi Police had challenged the magistrate’s order, which was stayed by the sessions court on April 9. In its final ruling, the court said the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to order a further probe since an FIR (No. 59/2020) regarding the larger conspiracy was already under trial. “Under Section 193(9) of BNSS, such a further investigation could not have been ordered… after the matter had been taken cognisance of by the Ld Special Judge,” it noted.
However, the court clarified that the magistrate could have directed registration of a separate FIR if the incident was unconnected with the ongoing conspiracy case.