Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
A Delhi court said that excess number of complaints cannot be a ground to club several complaints, while rejecting a Delhi police challenge to a Magisterial court ordering them to file a seperate FIR into the case of a man who lost his eye sight due to an acid attack during the Delhi riots.
Mohd Vakil, a resident of Shiv Vihar, was injured after an acid bottle thrown on his house by some rioters on February 25, 2020, and his complaint was clubbed with another FIR. A Magisterial court asked the police to register a seperate FIR, which was challenged before Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramchala.
The police argued that the magisterial court had failed to consider that Vakil’s complaint was clubbed in accordance with the law and that Vakil had no grievance against the police regarding the quality of the investigation.
ASJ Pramchala said that just because there was a flood of complaints, the investigating agency could not make an exception to the mandate of law.
“Clubbing all complaints of several incidents, in one FIR cannot be termed legal, unless all these complaints on the face of it show the time and place of such incidents to be same and indicate towards the same perpetrators of the crime, i.e. on the basis of continuity of action of the perpetrators. Just because there was flood of complaints, investigating agency could not make an exception to the mandate of law,” the court said.
The judge also noted that during the proceedings, the prosecution informed that final report in the FIR was not yet filed and they were about to file an “untraced report” (regarding the offenders remaining untraceable).
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
