New Delhi: A Special Court in Delhi on Monday set aside a trial court’s direction ordering “further investigation” into the alleged role of Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra in connection with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Special Judge Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) had committed “serious jurisdictional error” and overstepped its mandate while examining a complaint filed by Mohammad Ilyas, a resident of Yamuna Vihar.
The complaint alleged the involvement of Mishra in the riots and also named Mustafabad MLA and Delhi Assembly’s Deputy Speaker Mohan Singh Bisht, along with former BJP legislator Jagdish Pradhan, as being responsible for fuelling the violence.
In its order, the Special Court said: “The impugned order (of ACJM) thus reveals a serious jurisdictional error that makes the order illegal and unsustainable concerning the ‘first incident’. It is illegal, improper, and incorrect, as it exceeds jurisdiction and constitutes a case of jurisdictional overreach.”
It added that the ACJM went far beyond the limited scope of Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
“Instead of focusing… on whether the ‘first incident’ has been investigated or not, the Ld ACJM examined and made observations on matters already under trial before a higher Court,” the order stated.
The Special Judge deprecated the ACJM’s sweeping comments on the Special Cell’s conspiracy investigation, calling them “unwarranted, speculative, and prejudicial.”
The order noted: “There is a conflation between re-investigation and further investigation in the impugned order…. The ACJM went on to provide detailed criticism of the Special Cell’s manner of interrogation of Kapil Mishra and the conclusion that Kapil Mishra had no role in initiating or orchestrating violence, thereby making the impugned order legally challengeable and unsustainable.”
On the complaint itself, the court found that it did not clearly disclose a cognizable offence.
“Had only the complaint been perused, it would not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence… To assume a cognisable offence, the Ld ACJM relied on analogies and inferences from Kapil Mishra’s questioning in the larger conspiracy case,” it held.
Allowing the revision petitions filed by the Delhi Police and by Kapil Mishra, the Special Judge set aside the ACJM’s directions as “illegal, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.”
(IANS)
