New Delhi Oct 25 PTI A Delhi court on Monday set aside an order seeking explanation from the Delhi Police Commissioner on why legal action should not be taken against him for non-submission of a report in a February 2020 riots case District and Session Judge Ramesh Kumar passed the directions on a revision petition filed by Delhi Police against the October 21 order in which Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg had come down heavily on the police commissioner The magistrate had sought an explanation from the top cop under his signatures through Secretary Home Union of India as to why appropriate action as per law be not taken against him for non-submission of a report in compliance with an order dated September 25 Setting aside the order the session judge said Perusal of the revision file shows that this court vide order dated October 21 had stayed the operation of the order dated September 25 and as such the directions given by the Trial Court in the later order dated October 21 cannot be termed as non-compliance which was apparently passed after the stay was granted The consequential directions emanating from the impugned order were not warranted he said Accordingly order dated October 21 passed by the trial court is set aside the judge directed On September 25 CMM Garg had imposed a cost of Rs 5000 on the police noting that the investigating officer and prosecutor sought adjournment in a very casual manner and had directed the Police Commissioner to conduct an inquiry On the next date of hearing on October 21 the magistrate noted that although a request for extension of time for completion of the inquiry as per directions of the police commissioner has come from DCP North East no report has been received from the commissioner He had then directed Let an explanation be called from Commissioner of Police Delhi under his signatures through Secretary Home Union of India as to why appropriate action as per law be not taken against him for non submission of the report in terms of previous order Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 after violence between the Citizenship Amendment Act supporters and its protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and over 700 injured PTI AAK SA

New Delhi Oct 25 PTI A Delhi court has pulled up the police for not complying with its directions to supply coloured photographs and CCTV footage to the accused in February 2020 riots cases in a time-bound manner asking why appropriate legal action be not taken against the officials concerned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg issued the warning after Vinod one of the accused in a riots case apprised him that although he has received the complete copy of the charge sheet the coloured copies of photographs relied upon by the prosecution in it have not been supplied to him Expressing displeasure over this the judge noted that the investigating officer IO and Deputy Commissioner of Police northeast have failed to ensure the compliance of its earlier direction to ensure the supply of copies of coloured photos and CCTV footage in all the riots cases to all the accused against proper acknowledgment in a time bound manner In an order dated October 23 he directed a show cause be issued to the IO and DCP NE asking why appropriate action as per law including under Section 60 read with section 122 of Delhi Police Act be not taken against them for non-compliance of directions of the court The explanation be furnished by the IO as well as DCP NE through Joint Commissioner of Police Eastern Range the judge directed asking them to remain present on the next date of hearing if they wish to avail the opportunity of personal hearing on the show cause notice He further directed the IO to supply the coloured copy of all the photographs to the accused Vinod against proper acknowledgment Copies of the order be also sent to DCP NE Joint Commissioner of Police Eastern Range and Commissioner of Police Delhi for their information and compliance he added and posted the matter for further proceedings on October 28 Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 after violence between the Citizenship Amendment Act supporters and its protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and over 700 injured PTI AAK SA

New Delhi Sep 28 PTI This is really a sorry state of affairs a Delhi court said on Tuesday coming down heavily on the police for showing no progress in the investigation of a riots case months after registering the FIR Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav made the remarks after he was apprised that no progress has been made in the investigation of a case registered in June 2021 on the complaint of one Nasir Ahmed and even the persons named in the FIR have not been interrogated This is really a sorry state of affairs ASJ Yadav said adding that this case has not gotten the attention of either the Delhi Police Commissioner or the newly-constituted Special Investigation Cell SIC tasked to monitor the probe in the riots cases He noted that the police is claiming that the circumstances during the riots in February 2020 and four weeks thereafter were difficult followed by a pandemic due to which it could not investigate the cases properly I wonder whether the police can take the same excuse qua the investigation of the case PS Gokalpuri The answer has to be clear No ASG Yadav said He directed the prosecutor to tell the court about the probe carried by the police on the next date of hearing and asked the copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for his reference and to take appropriate steps Nasir Ahmed a resident of Delhis Bhagirathi Vihar area claimed that he witnessed the communal riots on February 24 and 25 and identified various persons out of a mob of 200-250 persons who were rioting near Gokalpuri toll-tax He claimed that on February 24 the mob put up a loud public address system and exhorted people to vandalize rob and put on fire the houses and shops of persons belonging to the other community while asserting that the police were with them He said that the mob allegedly stopped the persons passing through that area and if found to be from the other community they inflicted injuries upon them and burned their vehicles On February 25 he claimed that the mob put his godown and three bikes on fire He further said that on both dates he made several calls to the police but to no avail Ahmed then made several complaints to the police but no action was taken He also received threats following which the witness protection committee of the district asked the police to provide protection to him He was then constrained to approach the High Court where for the first time the prosecutor said that his complaint dated March 18 had been clubbed with two different cases Subsequently Ahmed approached the district court seeking registration of a separate FIR in his case and not to treat his complaint as part of another case The metropolitan magistrate allowed his plea on October 26 and directed the police to register the FIR The police however challenged the order which was dismissed by ASJ Yadav on April 26 They were asked to register a separate FIR which was done in June almost two months after the court directions The court will now hear the matter on October 22 on the point of charge Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 after violence between the Citizenship Amendment Act supporters and its protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and over 700 injured PTI AAK SA

New Delhi Sep 24 PTI A Delhi court has upheld the conviction of a man for sodomising an eight-year-old but reduced his jail term from three years to 18 months noting that he was about 19 years of age at the time of the incident and is an illiterate person Dharmender had challenged the May 2019 judgment of a metropolitan magistrate whereby he was convicted under Section 377 unnatural offences sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and directed to pay Rs 50000 compensation to the victim Upholding the decision Principal District and Sessions Judge Dharmesh Sharma said the testimony of the minor victim was of a sterling quality and that there is nothing to suggest that the child witness was tutored or had an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the man The judge noted that it is a case where the convict sodomised the minor boy and subjected him to extreme physical and mental pain I find no merit in the appeal and same is accordingly dismissed and the conviction under Section 377 IPC is upheld the judge stated in an order dated September 8 The court then passed the order on his sentence on September 23 The judge however lowered the jail term noting Keeping in mind that the appellant was about 19 years of age at the time of the incident and he is an illiterate person the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years is reduced to a period of 18 months The convict who is now a daily wager has already served a jail term of eight months and 13 days as per the judicial records He was sent to judicial custody in June 2008 and was released on bail in February 2009 The sessions judge further said that he is not inclined to grant him the benefit of Section 41 of the Probation of Offenders Act This section provides for the release of certain offenders on probation According to the prosecution the incident occurred on the evening of March 16 2008 when Dharmender sexually assaulted the minor in a house in a village in West Delhi The eight-year-old victim was playing with water balloons the convict took him away gagged his mouth and sexually assaulted him as a result of which he experienced pain according to his testimony The elder brother of the victim also corroborated his version He stated that his brother went to Dharmenders house to fill water in the balloons but after some time he heard his cries following which he disclosed that the convict did some wrong thing with him Dharmender ran away from the spot evaded arrest and finally surrendered before the metropolitan magistrate following which he was arrested on June 7 2008 PTI AAK SA

New Delhi Sep 22 PTI A Delhi court Wednesday dropped charges of arson against ten people accused of allegedly looting shops during the February 2020 riots saying the police was trying to cover up a flaw and clubbing incidents of two different dates The case was registered on the basis of three complaints -- one Birjpal stated that his rented shop was looted by a riotous mob at Brijpuri road on February 25 while Diwan Singh claimed that two of his shops were looted on February 24 Revoking arson charges Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav noted the complainants did not state a single word regarding the riotous mob committing mischief by fire or explosive substance in their initial statements Diwan Singh in his supplementary statement stated however that the riotous mob put his shop on fire to which the court said that the investigating agency cannot cover up the flaw by recording the supplementary statements if the offence of arson was not there in initial complaints made to the police The judge further said that arson charges cannot be invoked merely on the basis of statements of police witnesses who were posted as beat officers in the area on the date of the incident ASJ Yadav said that he is unable to comprehend how an incident that took place on February 24 can be clubbed with the incident which occurred on February 25 unless and until there is clear evidence that the same rioters were operating on both dates In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the considered view that ingredients of Section 436 IPC mischief by fire or explosive substance are not at all made out from the material produced on record by the investigating agency the judge said The ten accused are Mohd Shahnawaz Mohd Shoaib Shahrukh Rashid Azad Ashraf Ali Parvez Mohd Faizal Rashid Mohd Tahir The other sections invoked in the chargesheet such as Sections 147 rioting 148 rioting armed with a deadly weapon 149 unlawful assembly 188 disobedience to order by public servant 354 assault 392 robbery 427 mischief 452 house trespass 153-A promoting disharmony on grounds of religion 506 criminal intimidation are exclusively triable by a Magistrate ASJ Yadav said He ordered for the case to be transferred to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 after violence between the Citizenship Amendment Act supporters and its protesters spiraled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and over 700 injured PTI AAK SA