Delhi Police moves HC challenging order over Rs 25,000 fine in north-east violence case
Jul 26, 2021
New Delhi [India], July 26 : Delhi Police has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order which has slapped a fine of Rs 25,000 upon the city police and directed them to register a separate First Information Report (FIR) in connection with a gunshot injury to a man during violence in the north-east district of the national capital.
In the revised plea filed by Station House Officer (SHO) Bhajanpura, the petitioner has sought to set aside Sessions Court order dated July 13, 2021, and Magistrate Court order dated October 21, 2020.
SHO Bhajanpura has filed its petition through advocate Amit Mahajan. In the plea, the petitioner have also sought to call record from the trial court.
A Sessions Court in Karkardooma has dismissed the petition filed by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Bhajanpura challenging a Magistrate Court order.
"I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The same accordingly stands dismissed with a cost of Rs 25,000 which shall be deposited with Delhi Legal Services Authority by DCP (North-East) within one week from today and the said amount shall be recovered from the petitioner and his supervising officers, who have miserably failed in their statutory duties in this case after holding a due inquiry in this regard," the sessions court said.
SHO Bhajanpura had challenged the Metropolitan Magistrate's order dated October 21, 2020, whereby a petition filed under Section 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C) by the victims Nasir Ali was allowed and the police were directed to register a separate FIR on the complaint of the respondent within 24 hours of the receipt of the order.
Complainant Nasir had sent his complaint to the police naming the persons who reportedly wounded him on February 24, 2020, but the police did not act on his complaint. Thereafter, he approached a Magistrate Court with his grievances and sought to lodge a separate FIR.
But police maintained that Nasir's grievance was "duly stands redressed" as it had registered an FIR under appropriate sections and there is no need to lodge a separate FIR.
