A Delhi court on Tuesday pulled up the city police for “harassing” the victim of the north-east Delhi riots, by repeatedly serving her notices and seeking documents in connection with the investigation in her case, observing that Her complaint “seems to be genuine and not deceptive”.
no acknowledgment
The applicant is a Salman, appearing for advocate MR Shamshad, had filed a petition before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg seeking a direction to the Investigating Officer (IO) in the matter. Mr. Salman said that he had submitted documents to the police on two occasions in the past but no acknowledgment was being given to him by the investigating officer on receipt of the documents. In his petition, he also said that he is being forced to disclose the details of his new landlord.
During the hearing, the SHO and IO of Khajuri Khas police station told the court that they only wanted to record the statement of the new landlord of the house where Mr. Salman and his family had taken shelter after their home in West Karawal. Nagar was allegedly attacked by a mob who threatened to kill him and his family.
“…the court is unable to understand the purpose of recording the said statement, when the above landlord is not a witness to the alleged incident… Further investigation on the apprehension of the complainant in respect of alleged harassment by IO and SHO Khajuri Khas, prima facie appears to be genuine and not misleading,” the order read.
fair investigation
“The Joint Commissioner of Police, Eastern Range, is directed to file a comprehensive status report of further investigation in the present case under his signature within a period of two weeks from today and ensure that the investigation in the present case is conducted by the IO. Is performed. In a fair manner so that the real culprits can be traced and the complainant and the witness are not harassed unnecessarily.”
The court also reprimanded the Delhi Police for being “silent about the status of investigation” being conducted by the Investigating Officer in the present case.
Observing that the report received from DCP (Northeast) does not disclose the exact status of further investigation in the case, “IO is directed to produce the case diary, upon which the IO submitted the case diary along with the draft charge sheet. has done. present case”.
The judge said that this “shows that the steps taken by the IO for collection of various investigative material are not satisfactory in the investigation conducted in the matter”.
The court also noted that no clear explanation has been given by the police for not collecting the CDRs of all the accused in the case. As per the case records, Salman’s complaint in which he had named the accused in the mob was clubbed with another unidentified complainant in the same FIR. Thereafter, the court ordered setting aside of the FIR, but since the said accused persons were already being investigated, the same FIR was allowed to be conducted.
.