Police challenge ₹25k fine imposed in Delhi riots case

THE POLICE PLEA BEFORE THE HC SAYS THE TRIAL COURT RULING IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The city police have challenged in the Delhi high court a trial court order that imposed ₹25,000 fine on the force, and called its probe into a north east Delhi riots case “farcical” and “callous”.

On July 13, additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav dismissed the police’s plea challenging the order of the metropolitan magistrate that ordered registration of FIR in the complaint by one Mohammad Nasir, who was shot during the riots in North Ghonda, on February 24 last year.

The judge said that the fine will have to submitted to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a week. The judge said the petitioner, SHO of the Bhajanpura police station, and his supervising officers, have “miserably failed” in their

NEW DELHI:

statutory duties in this case.

Challenging this order, city police have stated that the court did not give a chance to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to justify his stand before imposing the cost, violating the principles of natural justice.

The police plea filed before the high court also stated that the judge failed to appreciate that imposition of such cost was “not only unwarranted but uncalled for” for the reason that the court did not find the petition as vexatious and that hand imposition of such cost would

“seriously affect not only the career of the government officials but would certainly cause serious dent to the reputation of the officers.”

The matter will now be heard on July 28.

Despite the fact that Nasir sought a separate case, his complaint was clubbed with an FIR registered for gunshot injuries suffered by six others during the riots. Following this, Nasir moved the court and on his plea, the metropolitan magistrate (MM) on October 21, 2020, directed the police to register a separate FIR.

The police challenged the order in the sessions court. But the sessions court imposed a fine on the police.

The court said that the facts produced before it revealed “a shocking state of affairs”, and it was not able to persuade itself about the efficacy and fairness of the investigation