|
The Rouse Avenue Court on Monday directed the police to supply a copy of the chargesheet filed in the riots conspiracy case to all respondents in a pen drive.
The direction was passed in a revision petition filed by the police challenging an order for further investigation into the role of Law Minister Kapil Mishra and others. Mishra has also filed a revision against the same order, which was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MP-MLA court) on a complaint by Mohd. Illiyas. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh directed Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad to provide the copy of the chargesheet within three working days and asked Illiyas to furnish the full name and address of respondent Chawla. The matter has been listed for compliance on May 31, and the interim stay will continue till the next date. Meanwhile, Mohd. Iliyas has filed his reply to the revision filed by Delhi Police. Mishra has filed a separate petition challenging the order. The police are yet to file a reply. SPP Madhukar Pandey appeared for the police. The court is hearing two revision petitions challenging the order for further investigation in the 2020 riots larger conspiracy case. Earlier, the court had issued notice on the petitions and stayed both the trial court's order and its observations on the police investigation. Senior Advocate Pavan Narang appeared for MLA Mohan Singh Bisht, and Advocate Siddesh Kotwal appeared for Kapil Mishra via video conferencing. The magistrate's order was based on material placed by the police and an application by Illiyas seeking FIRs against Mishra and others. Senior Advocate Pramod Dubey, appearing for Mishra, questioned the legality of ordering further investigation without an FIR, arguing that such a direction cannot be given in its absence. He said further probe is allowed only during the pendency of a final report, and no chargesheet existed before the MP-MLA court. SPP Amit Prasad questioned the magistrate's jurisdiction, stating that the FIR is already before a special court. He added that the complaint was emailed to several officials, including the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of Police, but not to the SHO, and thus does not meet the requirements for FIR registration. He also submitted that the complainant's statements were inconsistent and that there was no allegation of violation. He said the police had already investigated Mishra's role, and no incriminating material was found. The judge asked whether the allegations in the complaint had been investigated before the chargesheet was filed and whether other complaints alleged roadblocks by Mishra. The SPP responded that multiple complaints were filed, but none contained incriminating evidence. The SPP further submitted that 751 FIRs were filed in connection with the riots, but none referenced vehicle damage during the time cited. He said further investigation under Section 173(8) was unexpected and requested that the trial court's observations be stayed. (ANI)
|
