The court criticised the prosecution for filing a “confused” charge sheet that mixed up two distinct mobs and unclear allegations.
Judge Parveen Singh noted the prosecution had circumvented prior directions instead of conducting further investigation.
The Delhi Police Commissioner has been ordered to ensure compliance and file a report by November 14.
In a court hearing of a 2020 Delhi riots case, the prosecution was criticised for having handled the investigation and filing of chargesheets in a "complete mess" and was directed to take corrective action by the Delhi Police Commissioner.
Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh rapped the prosecution while hearing arguments on framing charges in the case registered by the Dayalpur police station.
In an order dated October 16, the court said, "It appears that the state has made a complete mess in this matter." The court noted that the predecessor judge had made a categorical observation about the complete confusion created by the charge sheet in the case regarding the clash of two different mobs during the February 2020 northeast Delhi communal riots.
It claimed that members of two distinct mobs with different objectives were listed as accused on the same charge sheet for several charges and that it was unclear which mob was responsible for what, including which properties and whose locations had been damaged, rioted, or set on fire.
.png?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&format=webp&w=768&dpr=1.0)
The previous judge's decision to investigate some complaints, including those of Azad, Zaid, and Sarla Devi, was also recorded by the court.
It stated that the prosecution first asked to have some of the complaints removed from the charge sheet, following the order. However, the special public prosecutor attempted to submit a third supplemental charge sheet in response to specific court enquiries.
The court stated that, in addition to requesting the release of two accused, the prosecution planned to withdraw seven complaints in the new supplemental final report on the grounds that more investigation was necessary.
It took note of the prosecution's arguments that distinct FIRs will be filed for these allegations, and that the two individuals whose release had been requested would then be charged.
Judge Singh then chastised the prosecution for not following the prior judge's directive after taking note of the evidence presented.
He said, "Apparently, instead of conducting further investigation as directed, and to show the court how these two mobs could have been connected in sharing a common object, the prosecution, if I am bold enough to say so, has tried to circumvent that order.
"And at the same time, it has not even done what it has stated in the supplementary chargesheet because today, on being inquired, it is submitted that no FIR about complaints, which had been sought to be withdrawn through supplementary chargesheet number 3, had been registered." The judge asked whether it was possible that the supplementary charge sheet, which was filed with a certain undertaking and purpose, was merely to defeat the order of the court? He said, besides, no investigation had been conducted into the complaints of Azad, Zaid and Sarla Devi.
"Therefore, it is evident that the entire case, which already had blurred facts, has been further mired with confusion by this supplementary charge sheet and the police, in fact, have not bothered to comply with the order dated January 21, 2025 (of the predecessor judge)," the judge said.
He directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Delhi Police Commissioner, who had to "ensure remedial action" and see to it that the previous judge's order was complied with.
"It is further directed that the Commissioner of Police shall also ensure that a report, duly signed by him or by the special commissioner of the area, is submitted to the court on or before the next date of hearing (on November 14)," the judge said.
With PTI inputs.
