’84 riot case: Magistrate ‘erred’ in ordering FIR

NEWDELHI: Delhi Police on Thursday told a city court that a magisterial court has erred in directing it to lodge a first information report (FIR) to probe the cause of death of two persons during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

The probe agency sought setting aside of the magisterial court order and claimed that Supreme Court guidelines were not followed by the complainant in filing the plea in the court.

After hearing arguments on a revision petition filed by the state, special judge Pitambur Dutt listed the matter for further arguments on March 27.

During the hearing, prosecutor Atul Shrivastava contended that as per the apex court’s guidelines, a person has to first approach the station house officer or the deputy commissioner of police concerned of the area with a complaint and move the court if no action is taken.

However, in this case, complainant Amrik Singh directly approached the court with his complaint. This was also in the knowledge of additional chief metropolitan magistrate who had ordered lodging of an FIR in the matter, the prosecutor said.

“The magisterial court has erred in directing the police to lodge an FIR. The complaint is pre-mature and infructuous. The magistrate should have asked the complainant to comply with the Supreme Court guidelines and then file the complaint,” the prosecutor said.

The magisterial court’s order had come on a criminal complaint filed by Amrik Singh of Tilak Nagar in west Delhi, seeking lodging of an FIR against then Delhi DCP Amod Kanth and former assistant commissioner of police SS Menon.

Singh, who lost two of his family members during the riots, alleged that the two senior police officials violated the constitutional right of the complainant and his family and misused the powers conferred on them.

Referring to various apex court judgments, Shrivastava said in one of the cases, the Supreme Court had said that an FIR cannot be lodged after fourand-a-half years of an incident. In this case, the magistrate had directed the police to register an FIR after 32 years of the alleged occurrence.

The sessions court had on January 25 stayed the additional chief metropolitan magistrate’s January 23 order on the police’s revision petition. The additional chief metropolitan magistrate had said “investigation needs to be carried out to collect evidence and find out the cause of death of Amir Singh and Narender Singh. The grievance of complainant and his family members needs to be redressed.”

The complainant had alleged that the two men were tortured and murdered by police officials. The police opposed the plea for an FIR, saying a petition was filed by the complainant in Delhi High Court in 2011 in this regard which was dismissed. It had also alleged that the family had started indiscriminate firing from their house and the two men had sustained bullet injuries in cross firing in 1984.

A PERSON HAS TO FIRST APPROACH THE SHO OR THE DCP CONCERNED WITH A COMPLAINT AND MOVE THE COURT IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN