New Delhi: City Court has attracted Delhi’s police for not knowing for nine months that they “investigated” cases in connection with the Northeast Delhi Riot, reported Usha Das.
Without an investigation, which can only be started after registration of cases, the accusation of someone is dismissed, the court said.
Judges further discovered a stand from a special public prosecutor, appearing for the police, “Ludicrous” and “it doesn’t make sense”.
The prosecutor was debated that the investigative officer (IO) had been “accidentally” not stated in his status report that the person’s complaint was beaten with other cases and that the accusation was indeed in the investigation.
‘The whole focus on the elimination of riots and is accused of alleged violations’ if this must be received at a nominal value, what it means is that the IO / Sho in question does not even know from March to November 2020, where they submit a reply and participate in the trial before the judge , that this complaint has been beaten with FIR no.
109/20, which is being investigated.
It was only when submitting the current revision request they somehow realized that they had investigated this problem, “The court was observed.
Observations came to the revised petition submitted by the police on the judge’s court order directing them to the separate FIR on Salim’s complaint, submitted through Advocate Mehmood Pracha.
Salim has claimed that he was attacked by the people mentioned and not named on February 24, 2020, during the riots.
He also took off attacks at his home, shooting, throwing stones and intimidation.
While the police stated that Salim himself was accused of Salim.
Doing riots, additional sessions of Judge Amitabh Rawat said there was no illegality or weakness in the Magistrate Court order and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Northeast) to register the wall at Salim seven days.
It added that even though the complaint was submitted on March 18, 2020, the Magistrate Court order was passed at 23.
November 2020, not in a hurry but A fter takes time and through both sides and material arguments on the note.
The court said that according to the answers submitted by IO, the accused mentioned in complaints was the victim of riots, and according to CCTV footage, Salim was allegedly found involved in riots and had filed a complaint wrong to save himself.
The next report stated that Salim faced prosecution in cases where the defendant was a victim or complainant.
It was said that by naked report the report, the reason was assigned not to register the case because of the allegations of people accused of complainants and witnesses in other cases and did not think about the charges contained in Salim’s complaints at all.
“The whole focus is in the complainant and accused of alleged violations.
It must be stated, without uncertain conditions, that before the judge, not only rejected the police with registration of FIR, but also stepped over the gravamen of the charges contained in the Salim complaint,” the Order said.