New Delhi [India], April 21 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Monday granted respondents time to file a reply on the revisions filed by Delhi Police and Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra. The court is dealing with two revisions challenging the order for further investigation on the role of Kapil Mishra in the North East Delhi riots of 2020.

Special judge Kaveri Baweja granted time to respondents Mohd Iliyas, Kapil Mishra, and others to file a reply on the petitions.

The court has also directed Delhi police to supply a copy of the charge sheet filed in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy to the respondents.

The court has listed the matter on May 7 for arguments, and the interim stay is to continue till the next date.

On April 9, the court issued notice on the revision petitions moved by Kapil Mishra. He has challenged the order passed by the magistrate court directing further investigation into the North Delhi riots of 2020.

The court had stayed the operation of the order passed by the trial court till the next date of hearing. The court had also called the trial court records.

Meanwhile, the sessions court has stayed the observation made by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in relation to the investigation of the Delhi police in the larger Conspiracy case.

During the hearing, Advocate Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi police, Senior advocate Pavan Narang, along with Advocates Neeraj and Himanshu Sethi, appeared for MLA Mohan Singh Bisht, and Advocate Manya Hashija appeared for Kapil Mishra.

The magistrate court had passed an order for further investigation on the basis of material placed by the Delhi police and the application of one Mohd. Illiyas.

Applicant Mohd Illiyas had sought a direction for registration of an FIR against Kapil Mishra and others.

Senior advocate Pramod Dubey appeared for Kapil Mishra. He argued, 'Can a further investigation without having an FIR? Where is the FIR? And there is no identification of the area of the police station.'

'In the absence of a FIR direction, an FIR can not be given,' Senior advocate Dubey argued.

Dubey also submitted that further investigation can be ordered during the pendency of the Final Report.

'There was no Charge sheet before the MP MLA Court. There should be pendency of charge sheet. For registration of an FIR, a complaint has to be filed before the police first, only after that, an application for registration of an FIR can be filed in the court. One ATR was filed when the matter was pending in the KKD court. Three ATRs were filed by the police. My client was interrogated by Delhi Police,' it stated.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi police and raised the question of jurisdiction of the magistrate court, which passed the order under challenge.

He submitted that even this court could not pass this court as it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with an FIR which is already under consideration of a special court, and a charge sheet has been filed.

This application for registration of FIR was filed through Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who was part of the propaganda building team in 2020, and the SPP submitted it before the court. This complaint was given to all officers and even the prime minister. Emails were sent to the prime minister, the home minister, the DCP, and the Commissioner of police. It was not emailed to SHO. This email cannot be treated as the compliance with necessary requirements for registration of FIR, Prasad added.

'A Status report narrating the five incidents was filed by the police,' the SPP for Delhi police said.

It was also argued that there was improvisation of the statement of the complainant. First, he said that the vehicles of Muslims and Dalits were stopped, and later on were allowed to go.

Later, the statement was changed to reflect that there was a Road block, damage to the cart of Muslims and Dalits at Kardam Puri road, SPP added.

There was no allegation of violation; the court below embellished the Complaint, the SPP submitted.

He further submitted that we informed the court that we have investigated the role of Kapil Mishra. Advocate Pracha was asked to argue, but he didn't; meanwhile, the roster was changed. We were again summoned and asked to place on record the material.

'We were directed to further investigate on the basis of material we provided in a matter which is before the special court,' SPP submitted.

The court asked, 'Had you ever investigated the allegations in the complaint before filing the charge sheet in the larger Conspiracy.

'Are there any other complaints alleging the road block by Kapil Mishra?' the judge questioned.

SPP submitted that there are multiple such complaints, but nothing incriminating was found.

He was asked during the recording of that statement whether he had ever visited the place of the incident. He replied that he lives in Yamuna Vihar, and a petrol pump was burnt near his colony, SPP said.

There are 751 FIRs, no FIR talks about damage of vehicles on the same date and time between 3 pm to 6 pm, it added.

It was further submitted by the SPP that he was called to assist the court in the matter of application under section 156(3) and was given direction under section 173( 8) for further investigation, it was not expected.

'I am going to face music every day due to this order,' SPP added. All these cases are tried in KKD, you do not get the power to give observation on the police investigation in a case that is before the special court, he added.

He prayed that the observation of the trial court should be stayed. (ANI)