Sessions Court Quashes Magistrate’s Order Directing Probe Into Minister Kapil Mishra’s Alleged Role In 2020 Delhi Riots
Pranav B Prem
In a major relief to Delhi Law Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kapil Mishra, a Delhi Sessions Court has set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) that had directed Delhi Police to investigate Mishra’s alleged involvement in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The order was passed by Special Judge (PC Act) Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue District Court, who quashed the Magistrate’s April 1, 2025, order, terming it “fundamentally flawed, illegal, and improper.”
The Court observed that the Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering “further investigation” into an incident already covered by a pending trial before a designated Special Court handling the Delhi riots conspiracy case (FIR No. 59/2020, PS Crime Branch). Judge Singh held that once cognizance had been taken by the Special Court, the Magistrate could not have ordered further investigation into the same matter under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). “Such further investigation could not have been ordered by the Ld. ACJM after the matter had been taken cognizance of by the Special Judge,” the Court noted.
The revision petitions were filed by both the State and Kapil Mishra challenging the Magistrate’s direction for further investigation based on a complaint by Yamuna Vihar resident Mohammad Ilyas, who alleged that Mishra and others vandalised carts and threatened protesters at Kardampuri on February 23, 2020. The Court observed that the Magistrate had “mechanically” directed further investigation without clearly stating whether a new FIR was to be registered or whether the complaint disclosed a distinct cognizable offence unconnected to the ongoing riot conspiracy case. Judge Singh noted that the repeated use of the term “further investigation” by the Magistrate caused ambiguity and jurisdictional conflict.
While the Magistrate had held that the Delhi Police’s investigation into the larger conspiracy behind the riots was based on “guesswork and assumptions,” the Sessions Court found these remarks unwarranted. It held that the ACMM had made “unnecessary and prejudicial” comments on a case already pending before a higher court, amounting to judicial overreach. The Court clarified that if the Magistrate had believed that the incident alleged by Ilyas was separate and not covered under FIR No. 59/2020, he could have directed registration of a fresh FIR rather than ordering “further investigation.” “It was within the Magistrate’s power to direct a separate FIR if the incident was unconnected to FIR No. 59/2020 and disclosed a cognizable offence,” the Court observed, “but such a direction required a clear and specific finding.”
The Court also took note that the complaint failed to disclose the number of people allegedly accompanying Mishra or whether any cognizable offence was committed. It found that the allegations merely referred to the breaking of carts and did not allege any act of violence or unlawful assembly involving Mishra. In conclusion, the Sessions Court quashed the April 1 order, holding that the Magistrate’s direction for further investigation was illegal, improper, and beyond jurisdiction. It thus allowed the revisions filed by the State (NCT of Delhi) and Kapil Mishra, setting aside the lower court’s directions.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for Kapil Mishra, while Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, along with Advocates Dhruv Pande and Aarush Bhatia, represented the Delhi Police. The complainant, Mohammad Ilyas, was represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha.
Cause Title: State V. Mohammad Ilyas & 6 Ors.
Case No: Crl. Rev 14/2025
Coram: Dig Vinay Singh [ Special Judge (PC Act)]
