North East Delhi Riots: Court pulls up Delhi police for clubbing 39 complaints in two FIRs, orders further investigation

New Delhi [India], November 18 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court pulled up Delhi police for clubbing 39 riot complaints in two FIRs without any concrete evidence. The court has directed the concerned SHO to conduct separate further investigations into these additional complaints.
This case pertains to rioting and vandalism in the area under Karawal Nagar police station.
In one FIR, police clubbed 17 complaints, and in another, they clubbed 22 complaints.
The court on Friday gave directions while framing charges against three accused persons, namely Javed, Gulfam and Pappu alias Mustkeem, for the offences of mischief by fire, theft, house trespassing, violation of prohibitory orders and orders issued by government officials.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala framed charges against Javed, Gulfam and Pappu alias Mustkeem for the offences punishable under related sections of law.
"A case is made out against accused persons for offences punishable under sections 148/380/427/435/452 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 188 IPC," ASJ Pramachala said in the order passed on November 17.
However, the court discharged the accused persons from the offence of destruction of property by fire.
The court said, "Accused persons are discharged for an offence under Section 436 IPC in the present case."
ASJ Pramachala said that on the basis of the statement of star witnesses of the prosecution and the complaint, as well as the statement of Zameer Ahmed, I find that the shop of Zameer Ahmed was vandalised by a mob of rioters, including the accused persons.
The judge observed, "The photographs of his shop as placed on the record do not show any burn mark in the shop, so as to make out a case of offence under Section 436 IPC."
The allegations made by this complainant make out a case of theft of his coolers as well as burning his coolers at his shop, apart from damaging the shutter of his shop, said the court.
It is also apparent that the accused persons violated the order under 144 Cr.P.C. as issued by the learned DCP (North East) in the North-East District, it added.
On the point of clubbing 39 complaints, the court said that the statement given by the additional complainants shows that their knowledge about the time and date of the incident was based on information given to them by some different persons.
"Unfortunately, during the initial period of investigation, the IO did not try to find out their particulars and examine them so as to ascertain the actual time and date of the incident in question," he pointed out.
The court added that the IO, at a much belated time on February 9, 2023, asked about the particulars of such informers from the additional complainants. But by this time, the complainants had shown their inability to furnish particulars of the present whereabouts of those informers.
The judge said, "In these circumstances, I find that there is no evidence on the record to even confirm the time and date of the incident at the respective places of the respective additional complainants.
"I also find that the star witnesses of the prosecution for identification of accused persons did not say anything about witnessing the incident reported by additional complainants," the judge added.
The court pulled up the prosecution and said, "Thus, the stand of the prosecution to prosecute all additional complaints with the FIR lodged in this case is found to be fallacious."
The court expressed its displeasure over the non-investigation of these complaints and said the IO relied on hearsay evidence.
"The additional complaints were not completely investigated to even confirm the date and time of such incidents, on the basis of relevant evidence. IO simply relied upon the hearsay evidence of the additional complainants and clubbed these complaints in this case," the judge remarked.
The judge said, "In my opinion, the conclusion on the investigation of the additional complaints is incomplete and they could not be clubbed for prosecution in this FIR. These additional complaints do require further and thorough investigation to reach a particular conclusion. Hence, SHO is directed to take up all the additional complaints for further investigation separately, in accordance with the law, in order to take them to a logical conclusion."
The present cases were registered on the basis of the complaints of complainants Aftab and Zameer.
In his complaint, Aftab alleged that he was running his shop on rent in Chand Nagar, Main Karawal Nagar Road, wherein he used to sell new bicycles and repair old bicycles.
It was further alleged that on February 25, 2020, rioters looted his shop, took out all the articles kept therein and set the shop on fire. He further alleged that in that incident he suffered a loss of Rs 6 lacs.
In his complaint, Zameer Ahmed alleged that he had taken a shop on rent in Gali no. 9 Moonga Nagar, Neeli Building, Karawal Nagar Road and was selling coolers.
He alleged that on February 24, 2020, between 11 am to 12 pm, after hearing some noise, he closed his aforesaid shop and came to his house. On February 25, 2020, in the morning, he came to know that rioters had broken the shutter of his shop and looted coolers and cooler accessories worth Rs 15-16 lakh.
During the investigation, police also received other complaints and clubbed them with the present FIR.