‘Illegal’: Delhi court sets aside order directing cops to further investigate Kapil Mishra’s role in 2020 riots

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Court was hearing a revision petition filed by Mishra against the order, which had directed further investigation into his alleged role in the riots that had rocked Northeast Delhi between February 24 and 26, leaving 53 people dead, and over 500 injured. “The Ld ACJM has repeatedly used the word ‘further investigation’, and not once has he mentioned that the order directs the investigation and registration of an FIR regarding the ‘first incident’,” said the Special Judge Singh in his order.

“Unwarranted, speculative, and prejudicial remarks have been made in the order concerning an investigation pending trial before a higher court. There is a conflation between reinvestigation and further investigation in the impugned order,” Special Judge Singh said.

On April 1, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia of Rouse Avenue Court had directed “further investigation” against Mishra while hearing an application filed by complainant Mohammad Ilyas, who had sought an FIR against Mishra as well as the then Station House Officer (SHO) of Dayalpur police station and five others, including BJP MLA Mohan Singh Bisht and former party legislator Jagdish Pradhan.

“The Ld ACJM should have also refrained from making any unnecessary comments about the investigation in FIR no.59/2020, if the Ld ACJM was of the view that the first incident had not been investigated in it, especially when that matter is pending trial before a higher court,” Judge Singh said.

“The impugned order also heavily relies on interpretations of Kapil Mishra’s statements during questioning… characterising his conversations with the DCP as an ‘ultimatum’ rather than a “request or assertion.”

A week after the April 1 direction, the sessions court had stayed the directions after Mishra approached it.

The Delhi Police Special Cell represented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had argued before the court that the magistrate court that ordered further investigation lacked the jurisdiction to do so.

The Special Public Prosecutor had told the court that Mishra’s role in the riots had been investigated and he was not responsible for their orchestration. He had also said that nothing incriminating was found against him.

Yamuna Vihar resident Ilyas had alleged in his complaint that he saw Mishra and others blocking a road in Northeast Delhi’s Kardam puri and destroying vendors’ carts. He had also claimed that the then deputy commissioner of police (DCP), Northeast Delhi, was standing next to Mishra along with other police personnel and warning the protestors to vacate the area or face consequences.

While ACJM Chaurasia found Kapil Mishra’s police interrogation to be insufficient, noting contradictions in his statements regarding the delivery of a speech, the Sessions Court Judge found the ACJM’s order “inconsistent” and “selective”.