Delhi riots: Court says cannot lodge FIR against BJP MLA Kapil Mishra
text_fields
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Friday dismissed an application seeking registration of an FIR against BJP MLA Kapil Mishra and others in connection with an alleged incident linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, PTI reported.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwani Panwar dismissed the plea filed by Mohammad Ilyas, saying that registration of an FIR was not legally permissible in view of earlier judicial findings.
Earlier, on November 10, 2025, the sessions court had set aside the magistrate court's order, which directed Delhi Police to seek Mishra's role in the riots.
In its Friday order, the court said, "The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that FIR be registered for the incident dated February 23, 2020 against proposed accused no 2 (Mishra) and his associates is legally impermissible at this stage in view of the findings laid down in the order passed by the learned special judge." The court noted that the findings of the earlier order passed by a special judge on November 10, 2025 "attained finality".
"The findings are binding on this court and have attained finality. The learned special judge has further held in order dated November 10, 2025, that Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS does not apply in this case. Even this finding has attained finality," the magistrate said.
The court noted that a previous order dated April 1, 2025, directing further investigation into the alleged incident had already been set aside by a special court on November 10, 2025.
"Keeping in view of the above findings, prayer for registration of FIR against BJP MLA Kapil Mishra and others, on the basis of application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS is hereby rejected," the court said.
According to the complaint, the alleged incident took place on February 23, 2020, during the communal riots, in which Mishra and his associates purportedly blocked roads at Kardampuri, vandalised carts belonging to Muslims and Dalits, allegedly with police complicity.
The court noted that a previous order dated April 1, 2025, directing further investigation into the alleged incident had already been set aside by a special court on November 10, 2025.
Quoting the special court's observations, the magistrate said the earlier order directing further investigation was "fundamentally flawed, illegal and improper" and therefore unsustainable.
The court further noted that the special judge had held that the application did not clearly disclose the commission of a cognisable offence and that the findings had attained finality as they were not challenged before the Delhi High Court.
However, the magistrate treated the application as a complaint case and granted liberty to the complainant to lead evidence in support of his allegations.
It then listed the matter on March 27 for examination of the complainant and his witnesses.
