Delhi riots: FIR lodged for using forged documents on judicial record, police tells court

source:-outlookindia

New Delhi, Aug 27 (PTI) The Delhi police informed a court here on Thursday that an FIR has been registered in a case related to alleged use of forged documents as genuine on judicial record in a north east Delhi riots matter.
The court had earlier asked the police to investigate the matter after they alleged that affidavits submitted in the case related to the communal violence in Dayalpur area in February this year, were attested by a counsel who had expired in 2017.

The Commissioner of Delhi Police informed the court that an FIR has been lodged against unknown persons under sections 182 (false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person), 193 (false evidence), 420 (cheating), 464 (false document), 466 (forgery of record of Court), 471 (using as genuine forged document), 472 (counterfeit seal), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The submissions were made before Additional Sessions Judge Vinod Yadav who was hearing the bail pleas of Mohd Abid and Arshad Qayyum in the case of rioting in Dayalpur area.

The police further informed the court that the case was being investigated by the Special Cell of the Delhi police.

“The investigation is in a preliminary stage. Progress of investigation shall be submitted before this court as and when directed,” said the police in its report submitted before the court.

Police had also alleged that a lawyer had allegedly instigated the complainant to depose falsely in the case.

They had informed the court through its report that complainant Irshad Ali had appeared before the Additional Commissioner of Police (Gokulpuri) on August 12.

Ali”s shop in Dayalpur area was allegedly looted and set on fire by the rioters during the communal violence in February.

“During the investigation, he (Ali) was enquired about the names of Deepak, Navneeet and Mintu, as mentioned in his complaint. He said that he knows them by their names and does not know anything about them personally. He also stated that he does not identify the accused persons in the video,” the report had said.

It had further stated that Ali had alleged that “one lawyer namely Mehmood Pracha called him in his office and told him that he has a complainant of a similar incident and there was also an eyewitness, who witnessed the whole incident as he was present there on February 24 and February 25.”

“Advocate Mehmood Pracha also said that if the complaint of Sharif is attached with your complaint, it will make your case stronger and you will get an eyewitness of the incident regarding looting your shop. It is pertinent to mention here that the present complainant Irshad Ali does not know or met eyewitness Sharif ever,” the report had alleged.

Pracha, who has been appearing for the accused and complainants in several riots cases, told PTI that if free and fair investigation is conducted in the matter, the real culprits will be found as the police officials had filed the report.

“If free and fair investigation is carried out, the real culprits will be found out as it is the police officials who filed the report,” he said.

The court had earlier said it would be appropriate if the matter was investigated by the Crime Branch or the Special Cell and requested the Commissioner of Delhi police to look into it and pass appropriate directions.

Police had further claimed that during the investigation, the statement of Dilshad, Ali”s brother, was recorded, in which he had alleged that on February 24, he was at his home with his brother and when he got a call that his shop had been looted, both of them reached the shop and it had been looted.

“They had not seen anybody looting or burning their shop. After that, they both returned to their home. Later on, they got a call that their shop had been set on fire. Regarding the video shown to him by the complainant, he stated that he did not recognize anyone in the video and no one in the video was from the local vicinity,” it had alleged.

It had further claimed that during the investigation, the statement of Shakil, brother of one of the accused Gulfam, was also recorded, in which he had stated that he does not know anyone named Ali.

During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the eyewitness was already wanted in another case related to the February riots and was still absconding, the report had alleged.

It had further alleged that the affidavit of Ali, which was submitted before the court, was attested by a counsel who had expired in 2017.

His wife had stated that after his death she had no knowledge of any document attested by the stamp of her husband”s name/notary public, it had claimed.

“The above sequence of events clearly indicates and raises a strong suspicion that how a person who expired way back in 2017 can attest a document in July 2020,” the report had alleged.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and around 200 injured. PTI URD RKS RKS