Delhi Riots 2020: Court directs registration of separate FIRs for cognisable offences

The Court held that the complainant's version reveals the commission of serious cognizable offences and cannot be brushed aside by mechanically clubbing it with a general FIR that does not reflect the specific allegations.

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Isra Zaidi passed the order, in an application wherein the complainant sought directions under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration of an FIR. The complainant had alleged that on February 25, 2020, at around 9:30 AM, he and his family were attacked by a violent mob comprising individuals identified as Vinod, Tinku, Aadesh Sharma, Mahesh, Suresh, Monu, Anshu Pandit, Rajpal, and others.

According to the complaint, the mob was armed with lathis, iron rods, and petrol bombs. They chanted inflammatory communal slogans and delivered hate speeches intended to instigate violence and create terror. The complainant stated that his house was vandalized, looted, and eventually set ablaze using petrol bombs. Jewellery, cash, and other valuables were stolen, and his tent house setup was also destroyed.

The complaint contained graphic allegations of communal threats and direct incitement to violence. It mentioned that one of the accused, Aadesh Sharma, pointed a gun and shouted, “Mulle tujhe aur tere pure khandan ko aaj katal karna hai, tumhe yahan rehne ka koi hak nahi pakistaniyo.” Others followed suit with slogans like “Desh ke gaddaron ko goli maaro” and “Mullo ke do sthan, Pakistan ya kabristan.” The accused allegedly hurled petrol bombs into the complainant’s house and fired bullets into the air.

Though the complainant had submitted a written complaint (diary no. 22B dated 01.03.2020) to the SHO, no separate FIR was registered. Instead, his complaint was merged with FIR No. 117/20 registered at PS Karawal Nagar, which, as the court later noted, pertained to an entirely different incident involving different individuals and a different time of occurrence.

The police, in their Action Taken Report, informed the Court that a total of 29 complaints were clubbed under FIR No. 117/20. However, on a perusal of the FIR, the Court found that the allegations therein were made by a different complainant, Azad Singh, against a different set of individuals and events that occurred at 11:30 AM, two hours after the complainant’s alleged incident.

The Court, referring to key Supreme Court decisions including Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, and Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P., held that when a complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, police are duty-bound to register an FIR. It noted that the complainant’s version was independent and distinct from that in FIR No. 117/20, and therefore warranted a separate FIR.

Rejecting the police’s justification of clubbing the complaint, the Court stated, “Such grave allegations cannot be permitted to be diluted or ignored merely by clubbing with a general FIR.” It emphasised that the Magistrate's role is not to determine the truthfulness of the complaint at this stage, but to ensure statutory compliance under Section 154 CrPC.

The Court concluded that the complainant had been denied appropriate redress and ordered the SHO of Karawal Nagar to immediately register a separate FIR and conduct a fair investigation in accordance with law. However, it clarified that no direction was being issued for immediate arrests.

A compliance report has been sought within seven days, with the matter now listed for further proceedings on July 31, 2025. The order has also been marked to the DCP (North-East) for necessary compliance and oversight of the investigation.