A Special Court granted relief to Law Minister Kapil Mishra, setting aside a trial court’s ‘flawed’ order for further investigation. The judge cited ambiguity and jurisdictional errors, as the lower court used ‘further investigation’ instead of ordering a new FIR.
A Special (MP-MLA) Court at Rouse Avenue court on Monday granted a relief to Law Minister Kapil Mishra by allowing his revision petition as well as that of the Delhi police. The special court set aside the order for further investigation, calling it flawed, illegal and improper.
The trial court had directed a further investigation into the role of Kapil Mishra without an order for registration of an FIR. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh allowed both revisions after hearing the submissions from counsel for all parties.
The special court held, “The order under challenge, viewed from any perspective, is fundamentally flawed, illegal, and improper, rendering it unsustainable.”
“It is set aside regarding the direction for further investigation into the incident mentioned, which is referred to as the “first incident” in the impugned order,” the special judge said in an order passed on Monday.
Court Cites Ambiguity in ‘Further Investigation’ Directive
The court remarked that Judicial orders, especially those affecting rights and potentially affecting someone’s liberty, must be unambiguous.
The court said, “Any such order that could impact someone’s rights and liberty must be explicit and free from conflicting interpretations. If the Ld. ACJM believed that the alleged ‘first incident’ had not been investigated in FIR No. 59 of 2020; he should have explicitly stated so in his order and directed an investigation and the registration of a new FIR accordingly. “Without such a specific observation for investigation or the registration of a new FIR, the repeated use of the term “further investigation” in the impugned order led to differing interpretations by both parties. The fact that the impugned order has been interpreted differently by both sides indicates that it suffers from a material flaw,” a Special judge said.
The court stated that a mere perusal of the impugned order reveals that it suffers from a serious jurisdictional error and is illegal insofar as it directs ‘further investigation’ into the ‘first incident’ alleged by the complainant. ” The Learned ACJM has repeatedly used the word ‘further investigation’, and not once has he mentioned that the order directs the investigation and registration of an FIR regarding the ‘first incident’,” special judge Dig Vinay Singh noted in the order passed on November 10.
The special court observed that throughout the order, there is no indication that the ACJM intended a fresh FIR to be registered and the matter to be investigated anew. The term “further investigation” is used everywhere.
The special court observed, “Although the law mandates that the officer-in-charge of the police station must register the FIR for a cognizable offence disclosed, even if the magistrate does not explicitly state so, while directing the investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS, the order should at least clearly indicate that the Magistrate’s requirement and direction are for ‘investigation.’ In this case, the order merely suggests a direction for further investigation and does not specify an investigation.”
Jurisdictional Errors Highlighted
“Once the final report arising from FIR no.59 of 2020 (larger Conspiracy) was already under trial before a superior court of a Special Judge, and this was known to the Learned ACJM, had the ACJM intended the registration of a fresh FIR, he should have been specific,” the Special Judge clarified in the order.
The court said that without such a specific observation for investigation or the registration of a new FIR, the repeated use of the term “further investigation” in the challenged order led to differing interpretations by both parties. The fact that the challenged order has been interpreted differently by both sides indicates that it suffers from a material flaw.
Unnecessary Comments by Trial Court Criticized
The court also pointed out that the trial court should have refrained from making unnecessary comments on the investigation done by the special cell. The court stated that although the order does not explicitly direct the Special Cell to conduct further investigation or specify that it should relate to FIR no. 59 of 2020, a bare reading of the impugned order clearly indicates that it repeatedly directs further investigation.
The Court said that Learned ACJM should have also refrained from making any unnecessary comments about the investigation in FIR no.59 of 2020, if the ACJM was of the view that the first incident had not been investigated in it, especially when that matter is pending trial before a higher court.
“If the Ld ACJM believed that the incident was improperly investigated in FIR No. 59/2020, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the matter is already under trial before a higher designated Court. If the Court found that the incident had not been investigated anywhere, it could not have merely ordered further investigation,” the special judge said.
Discrepancy Noted Between Complaint and Court Order
The special judge also noted that the complaint given to the police or the application filed in court does not mention any ‘violence’ by Kapil Mishra and his associates on 23.02.2020; it only references vandalism of carts.
“However, in the impugned order, the ACJM introduced the act of “violence” by Kapil Mishra and his associate, despite the complaint and the statement of 24.09.2024 not alleging any violence,” the Special Judge said. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)