A Delhi sessions court on Monday set aside a magistrate court's order directing further investigation into BJP leader Kapil Mishra's alleged role in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. The court stated that the order suffered from a serious jurisdictional error. The decision came during the hearing of Mishra's revision petition.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh at Rouse Avenue Court heard Mishra's revision petition. He stated, 'A mere perusal of the impugned order reveals that it suffers from a serious jurisdictional error and is illegal as far as it directs “further investigation” into the “first incident” alleged by the complainant.' The judge noted that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) repeatedly used the term 'further investigation' without mentioning investigation or registration of an FIR.
The riots occurred between February 24 and 26, 2020, in Northeast Delhi, leaving 53 dead and over 500 injured. On April 1, ACJM Vaibhav Chaurasia directed further investigation against Mishra while hearing an application by complainant Mohammad Ilyas. Ilyas, a Yamuna Vihar resident, alleged he saw Mishra and others blocking a road in Northeast Delhi's Kardampuri and destroying vendors' carts. He claimed the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Northeast Delhi, stood next to Mishra with other police personnel, warning protesters to vacate the area.
Ilyas sought an FIR against Mishra, the then Station House Officer of Dayalpur police station, BJP MLA Mohan Singh Bisht, former legislator Jagdish Pradhan, and five others. Judge Singh said the ACJM's order contained unnecessary comments on an investigation pending trial in a higher court. He described the ACJM's interpretation of Mishra's statements as selective and inconsistent, characterizing conversations with the DCP as an 'ultimatum' rather than a request.
A week after the April 1 direction, the sessions court stayed it on Mishra's application. Delhi Police Special Cell, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, argued the magistrate court lacked jurisdiction. Prasad told the court that Mishra's role had been investigated, and nothing incriminating was found against him.