Delhi court sets aside probe order against Kapil Mishra, says magistrate exceeded jurisdiction

The judge said the ACJM had relied “on analogies and inferences from Kapil Mishra’s questioning in the larger conspiracy case,” despite Delhi Police having already investigated his alleged role.

A Delhi court on Monday set aside an order directing further police investigation against Delhi law minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kapil Mishra and six others for their alleged role in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, observing that the magistrate had exceeded jurisdiction and that no prima facie offence was made out against Mishra.

The court said the complaint lacked clarity on the number of accused, contained inconsistent details, and cited incidents at multiple locations. (HT archive)

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court passed the order while allowing a revision petition filed by Mishra and others challenging an April 1 order of additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) Vaibhav Chaurasia, who had directed further investigation into a complaint by Yamuna Vihar resident Mohammad Ilyas.

“To initiate legal action, the application (complaint) should have clearly disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence, which it lacks,” the court said. The judge added that the ACJM had relied “on analogies and inferences from Kapil Mishra’s questioning in the larger conspiracy case,” despite Delhi Police having already investigated his alleged role.

The court noted that the magistrate’s order was ambiguous on whether it sought registration of a new FIR, stressing that “judicial orders affecting rights and liberty must be unambiguous.” It held that the magistrate’s move amounted to judicial overreach, as the Special Cell’s earlier reports found no evidence implicating Mishra in orchestrating violence.

The complaint, filed in August 2024 through advocate Mehmood Pracha, alleged Mishra and associates blocked roads in Kardampuri and destroyed carts during protests. The court said the complaint lacked clarity on the number of accused, contained inconsistent details, and cited incidents at multiple locations.

Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad argued the Delhi Police probe had already uncovered a conspiracy to falsely implicate Mishra, whose alleged role was examined in the larger conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.