The Delhi High Court recently criticised the Delhi Police's investigation into an incident involving the alleged shooting of a Muslim man during the 2020 Delhi riots [Naresh Tyagi Vs State & Ors.]. .Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while quashing a magistrate's order for the registration of a separate First Information Report (FIR) into the matter, opining that the incident can be investigated as part of an already existing FIR. .The High Court found that a general FIR already stood registered in connection with the violence that had broken out in Ghonda area. It noted that the victim Mohd Nasir's gunshot injury was already taken note of in that case. Thus, it ruled that there was no occasion for the magistrate to direct registration of a separate FIR. However, the Court also took note that the complainant had approached the magistrate only after the police had given a clean chit to the accused on the ground that they were not present in Delhi.It added that the complainant had come across another rioting FIR in which the same persons had been made accused, indicating that they were very much present in Delhi on the date of the incident."It, therefore, emerges that the main grievance is in regard to the investigations not being conducted properly in the FIR No. 64/2020. This is also evident from the fact that despite the Mohd. Nasir and other injured found present in the Hospital and their MLCs were collected, their statements were not recorded on the pretext that they were not willing to give their statements. No apparent effort was made by the I.O., to record their statements even subsequently," the Court said.Taking note of the contradictions and lapses, the Court said,"It is evident that there is selective and poor investigations conducted in the FIR.".However, the Court also opined that the complainant's grievance, that the actual culprits have been let off, can still very well be addressed in the same FIR by seeking further investigation."Or else the named accused can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage at the appropriate stage whose name may emerge in the evidence as accused or the Complainant can file a Protest Petition and seek further investigations in the FIR, on the aspects which have not been investigated," the Court added..The Court, therefore, quashed the order directing the registration of a subsequent FIR. The judgment was delivered on a plea moved by an accused in the case, Naresh Tyagi.The magistrate's direction for a separate FIR had earlier been challenged by the Delhi Police before a sessions court. However, an Additional Sessions Judge upheld the magistrate's order and also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on DCP, North East for the police's shoddy investigation in the matter.Both Tyagi and Delhi Police then moved the High Court..Considering the two petitions, the Court expunged the references made by Additional Sessions Judge to the case diary and ordered that they shall not be referred to in any manner during the trial.The Court also observed that though the investigations had gaps, it was not done intentionally. Thus, it aside the costs imposed on the DCP.“While it cannot be overlooked that the investigations had various gaps and had not been conducted diligently, but there is nothing to show that it was done intentionally," it said..Advocates Vikas Arora and Radhika Arora appeared for accused Naresh Tyagi.Public Prosecutors Rajat Nair with advocates Dhruv Pandey and Alok Dubey appeared for Delhi Police.Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar, Jatin Bhatt, Kshitij Singh, Sadia Sultan, Nujhat Naseem and Sikander appeared for complainant Mohammad Nasir..[Read judgment] .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
