New Delhi [India], April 9 : Delhi's Rouse Avenue court on Wednesday issued a notice on the revision moved by Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra. He has challenged the order passed by the magistrate court directing further investigation in the 2020 Delhi riots.
The court has stayed the operation of the order of the magistrate court till the next date of hearing.
Special judge Kaveri Baweja issued a notice on the revision petition moved by Kapil Mishra and the Delhi police.
The special court sought a response and listed the matter for hearing on April 21.
The court has also called the trial court records.
Meanwhile, the sessions court has stayed the observation made by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in relation to the investigation of the Delhi police in the larger Conspiracy case.
During the hearing, senior advocate and BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj was also present in the court.
This matter is listed for a compliance report before the Magistrate court on April 16.
Delhi law Minister has moved a petition against the further investigation order in relation to 2020 Delhi riots.
Another petition has been filed by Delhi police against the order of further investigation.
The magistrate court had passed an order for further investigation on the basis of material placed by Delhi police and the application of one Mohd. Illiyas.
Applicant Mohd. Illiyas had sought a direction for registration of an FIR against Kapil Mishra and others.
Senior advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey alongwith advocates Siddhesh Kotwal, Paritosh Anil, Madhav Sareen, Manya Hashija appeared for Kapil Mishra. Pramod Kumar Dubey argued, "Can a further investigation without having an FIR?" Where is the FIR. And there is no identification of the area of police station.
"In absence of FIR direction for FIR can not be given," Senior advocate Dubey argued.
Dubey also submitted that Further investigation can be ordered during the pendency of Final Report. There was no Charge sheet before the MP MLA Court. There should be pendency of charge sheet.
For registration of an FIR, a complaint has to be filed before the police first, only after that an application for registration of FIR can be filed in the court.
One ATR was filed when the matter was pending in KKD court. Three ATRs were filed by the police. My client was interrogate by Delhi Police.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared for Delhi police. He raised the question of jurisdiction of the magistrate court which passed the order under challenged.
He submitted that Even this court could have not pass this court as it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with an FIR which is already under consideration of a special court and charge sheet has been filed.
This application for registration of FIR was filed through Advocate Mehmood Pracha who was part of propaganda building team in 2020, SPP submitted before the court.
This complaint was given to all officers and even prime minister. Email were sent to prime minister, home minister, DCP, Commissioner of police. It was not emailed to SHO.
This email cannot be treated as the compliance of necessary requirements for registration of FIR, Prasad added.
A Status report narrating the five incidents was filed by the police, SPP for Delhi police said.
It was also argued that there was improvisation of statement of complainant. First he said that Vehicles of Muslim and Dalits were stopped and later on were allowed to go cart.
Later the statement was changed to effect that there was, damage to the cart of Muslims and Dalits at Kardam Puri road, SPP added.
There was no allegation of violence, the court below embellished the Complaint, the SPP submitted.
He further submitted that We informed the court that we have investigated the role of Kapil Mishra. Advocate Pracha was asked to argue, but he didn't, meanwhile the roster was changed. We were again summoned and asked to place on record the material.
" We were directed to further investigate on the basis of material we provided in a matter which is before the special court," SPP submitted.
The court asked, " Had you ever investigate the allegations in complaint before filing the charge sheet in larger Conspiracy.
Are there any other complaint alleging the road block by Kapil Mishra? the judge questioned.
SPP submitted that There are multiple such complaint, but nothing incriminating found.
Learned ACJM interpreted Statement of Kapil Mishra.
He was asked during recording of statement that had you ever visited the place of incidents? He replied that he lives in Yamuna Vihar and a petrol pump was burnt near his colony, SPP said.
There are 751 FIRs, no FIR talks about damage of vehicles on the same date and time between 3 pm to 6 pm, he added.
It was further submitted by the SPP that he was called to assist the court in the matter of application under section 156(3) and was given direction under section 173( 8) for further investigation , it was not expected.
" I am going to face music everyday due to this order, " SPP added. All these cases are tried in KKD, you do not get the power to give observation on the police investigation in a case that is before the special court, he added.
He prayed that the observation of the trial court should be stayed.