2020 Delhi Riot: Sessions court stays FIR order against SHO over forced anthem singing

A sessions court in Delhi has stayed a magistrate court order that directed the registration of an FIR against a station house officer (SHO) in connection with an incident during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, where a group of men was assaulted and forced to sing the national anthem by police personnel, stating that allowing the order to proceed would undermine the purpose of a revision petition filed by the SHO.

The magistrate court had described the police action as a hate crime and instructed an FIR to be filed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to hurting religious sentiments, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation, The Indian Express reported.

The complaint, which led to the magistrate's order, was filed by Mohd Wasim, one of the five men seen in a video being beaten and humiliated by police officers during the riots. The footage, which had surfaced at the time, showed uniformed personnel using sticks to prod the men as they lay on the ground, with one of the victims, Faizan, succumbing to his injuries later.

Following Faizan’s death, the Delhi High Court had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the matter, while the police had initiated departmental inquiries against two personnel.

The SHO in question, Shailendra Tomar, had challenged the magistrate’s order before the sessions court, arguing that it amounted to double jeopardy since an FIR had already been registered at Bhajanpura police station over the same incident.

He contended that the magistrate court lacked the authority to direct the filing of another FIR, as the matter involving Faizan was already under the purview of the Delhi High Court. He further claimed that any investigation into the incident should be conducted under the jurisdiction of the high court rather than through separate legal proceedings at the magistrate level.

The magistrate’s order had also directed the current SHO to assign an officer of at least inspector rank to investigate the case, with instructions to examine the involvement of other police officials in the alleged offences. The order had categorically stated that the accused officers could not claim protection under legal provisions that cover actions carried out in an official capacity, as the nature of their conduct did not align with their lawful duties.

However, the sessions court observed that allowing the magistrate’s order to proceed would undermine the purpose of the revision petition, thereby justifying its decision to stay the directive.

With the stay now in place, the legal proceedings concerning the role of the police in the incident remain uncertain, as Faizan’s case continues to be under judicial scrutiny while Wasim’s complaint has been stalled.