Read Time: 07 minutes

The Delhi High Court today issued notice in an appeal filed by Delhi Police against Trial Court's order, which had imposed a cost of Rs 25000 on it for failing to register a separate FIR of one Mohd. Nasir who had received injuries in the North East Delhi riots and for allegedly casual, callous and farcial investigation of the case.

The single Judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has listed the matter for next hearing on September 13.

ASG Raju appearing for Delhi Police argued that they had challenged the cost imposed by the Trial Court and the strictures passed against the Delhi Police.

He further submitted that at the time of investigation the Police found that the accused was not present at the place of incident.

Raju argued that the Court had imposed costs without granting an opportunity of being heard to the Police.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha appeared for the Respondent Mohammed Nasir.

The Trial Court while hearing a revision petition of the Delhi Police for failing to register a separate FIR of the complainant Mohammad Nasir had observed that the Delhi police had failed to execute its statutory duties.

The Court had further observed that "The mandate of the Delhi High Court Rules, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent has not been followed by either the police or  by learned Illaka MM in the matter, which clearly goes on to establish that the investigation even in case FIR No.64/2020, PS Bhajanpura has been done in a most casual, callous and farcical manner."

The Delhi Police in its appeal has submitted that the Trial Court had denied the DCP an opportunity of being heard before imposing costs which was against the principles of Natural Justice.

It has further been submitted that the imposition of Cost by the Trial Court was uncalled for which would seriously affect not only the career of the Govt. Officials but would certainly cause serious dent to the reputation of the officers."
 

The Delhi police has alleged that the Trial Court had "made very serious remarks against the investigation even prior to the commencement of the trial which is contrary to the basic law that no finding should be given in the midst of trial. But in the present case, such adverse remarks which are bound to effect the fate of the case, whose trial is still to commence and that too without calling report or explanation from the concerned IO."

The case relates to one Nasir who had received gunshot injury on his left eye by one Naresh Tyagi in the Delhi Riots last year after which he made a written complaint and specifically mentioned the name of the accused to SHO Bhajanpura. However no FIR was registered against them by the Police.

A petition was also made before the MM Court. However in the meanwhile an FIR was registered where it was stated that Nasir along with 6 other persons in his locality had suffered gunshots injury.

The Delhi Police had argued that since an FIR had already been registered another FIR was not required.

 

 
 

Case Title:STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO, PS BHAJANPUR v. MOHAMMAD NASIR & ORS