The Delhi High Court on November 26 quashed and set aside a second FIR lodged at the Khajuri Khas police station regarding the 2020 Delhi riots stemming from the same incident against former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain. The court directed that the chargesheet from the second FIR be treated as a supplementary chargesheet in the first FIR.
Two FIRs were lodged stemming from a single incident of riots on February 24, 2020, that occurred in the same premises, except one occurred on the ground floor and the second on the first floor of the building. The first FIR was lodged on February 25 based on a complaint by a constable booking Hussain for the offences of rioting, mischief by fire, and trespassing under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well for offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The incident occurred in Pradeep Parking, and at the time, food was also being prepared for a wedding on the same premises. The second FIR was lodged on February 27 based on a complaint by Tejveer Singh, whose niece was due to solemnise her marriage, and preparations were underway in the building for the same.
Singh alleged that Hussain and others forming part of the mob had attacked the building, and after setting fire to the vehicles parked in the Pradeep Parking, the rioters moved to the first floor of the building in question, where food was being prepared for the marriage ceremony. The rioters then allegedly set fire to the goods and ran away.
Hussain had moved before the Delhi HC seeking quashing of the second FIR on the ground that since both FIRs arose out of the same transaction that took place on the same day in the same building, two FIRs could not have been registered.
The prosecution had, however, argued that charges had been framed in the two cases by the trial court. A comparison would show that only three counts of charge are common in the two cases, while five counts of charges framed in the trial case stemming from the second FIR were not part of the charges framed in relation to the first FIR, thus necessitating two separate trials.
Ruling that “both the incidents are a part of the same incident”, the court held that the second FIR needs to be quashed. However, Justice Subramonium Prasad noted, “…this court cannot ignore the fact that trial has started in both the cases and the victims in both the cases are different and quashing FIR No.116/2020 (second FIR) will cause injustice to the victims in the said FIR. The mistake of the Prosecution in filing two FIRs for an incident which has occurred in the same building cannot result in injustice to the victims in FIR No.116/2020, who will have no remedy in law if FIR No.116/2020 is quashed.”
Disclaimer: We do not own any of the content, ideas, images, or text presented here. All rights belong to their respective owners. For more information and to view the original source, please visit the following link: