A Rouse Avenue court dismissed a complaint against Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra in the 2020 North East Delhi riots case. The dismissal was due to the complainant’s repeated non-appearance and failure to prosecute the case.
The Rouse Avenue court on Wednesday dismissed a complaint filed against Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra and other proposed accused for non-appearance of the complainant as well non prosecution.
This complaint was filed by one Mohd. Ilyas in connection with the North East Delhi riots of 2020.
Court Dismisses Complaint Citing Non-Prosecution
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar dismissed the Complaint moved by Mohd. Ilyas for his non-appearance and non-prosecution of the same. The court also noted that the complainant was absent on Wednesday and on previous dates.
ACJM Panwar said, “The absence of the complainant without any sufficient reason shows that the complainant is deliberately delaying the proceedings of the present matter.”
“In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to dismiss the present complaint case due to non-prosecution by the complainant. Accordingly, the present complaint case stands dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant as well as non-prosecution,” ACJM Ashwani Panwar ordered on April 29.
A History of Adjournments and Absence
Earlier, the court had rejected the prayer for registration of an FIR. The court has asked the complainant to record his statment.
The court was earlier informed that a revision petition was filed against the order passed on March 13, 2026. Thereafter, the matter was listed for examination of the complainant on March 27.
The court noted that even on 27.03.2026, the complainant failed to appear before the Court for his examination and at the request of Counsel for the complainant, the matter was adjourned for 08. 04.2026 at 11:30 AM.
On 08.04.2026, again the complainant was absent, his Counsel submitted that a revision petition had been preferred before the Session Judge, Rouse Avenue court, against the order of March 13, 2026. The matter was adjourned for 17.04.2026.
On 17.04.2026, again, an adjournment was sought by the complainant side, citing the non-availability of arguing counsel Mehmood Pracha. The complainant was also not present on the said date. Accordingly, at request, the matter was adjourned for April 29, subject to the last and final opportunity.
Court Notes Contradictory Statements
On April 29, the submission was made that the revision petition will be filed shortly before the Sessions Court, which is in contradiction to the submissions of Counsel, which were duly recorded in an order dated 08.04.2026, the court noted.
“The conduct of the Learned Counsel for the complainant in making a contradictory statement before the Court speaks volumes about their casual approach in conducting the proceedings of the present matter,” the court said in the order.
The court further said that the absence of the complainant from the last three dates of hearing shows that he is not interested in pursuing the present matter.
“On specific query, no plausible explanation for non-appearance of the complainant has been stated by the Learned Counsels appearing on his behalf,” the court noted.
The court made a specific query with respect to the next date of hearing before the Learned Revisionist Court. The Counsel stated that they will be filing the revision petition within a short span of time. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)