Delhi Sessions Court Quashes Probe Order Against Minister Kapil Mishra in Riots Case, Cites Jurisdictional Flaw

New Delhi – In a significant procedural ruling with wide-ranging implications for the handling of complex criminal investigations, a Delhi Sessions Court on Monday set aside a Magistrate’s order that had directed the Delhi Police to investigate the alleged role of Delhi Law Minister and BJP leader Kapil Mishra in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts allowed the revision petitions filed by both Mr. Mishra and the Delhi Police, declaring the lower court's directive as "jurisdictionally flawed and legally unsustainable." The decision pivots on the critical legal distinction between ordering a fresh investigation versus interfering in a pre-existing, larger conspiracy probe already under the purview of a Special Court.

The ruling provides a major reprieve for Mr. Mishra and reinforces the Delhi Police's stance in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the riots, which resulted in 53 fatalities and widespread destruction.

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Magistrate's Directive

The controversy began on April 1, 2025, when Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Vaibhav Chaurasiya, responding to a complaint by Yamuna Vihar resident Mohammad Ilyas, ordered the Delhi Police to conduct a further investigation into Mr. Mishra’s role. Mr. Ilyas had alleged that on February 23, 2020, he witnessed Mr. Mishra delivering a provocative speech and threatening anti-CAA protesters, just before the violence erupted.

In his order, Magistrate Chaurasiya had sharply criticized the Delhi Police's investigation into the riots, particularly its "larger conspiracy" theory. He remarked that the prosecution's case was built on "many questionable assumptions, guesswork and interpretations."

“Once these flaws are outlined, therefore the theory goes off and so does the lens with which prosecution seeks to interpret the facts,” the ACJM had stated, effectively questioning the foundation of the ongoing UAPA case against several activists.

This directive was promptly challenged by both Mr. Mishra and the Delhi Police, leading to an interim stay on April 9 and culminating in the present order setting it aside.

The Sessions Court's Jurisdictional Rebuke

The core of Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh's decision rests on the principle of jurisdictional propriety. The court found that the ACJM had overstepped his authority by ordering a "further investigation" into a matter intrinsically linked to the larger conspiracy case (FIR No. 59/2020), which is being exclusively tried by a Special Court designated to handle cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Delhi Police had argued that the ACJM, despite being aware of the pending UAPA case, "encroached upon the jurisdiction of the special court."

Special Judge Singh’s order meticulously dissects this jurisdictional conflict. He noted that while a Magistrate has the power to order the registration of a new FIR, doing so requires a specific finding that the alleged incident is distinct from any ongoing investigation.

“However, this required a specific finding that there was no connection between the incident alleged by the complainant and the investigation in FIR No. 59/2020, and that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence that requires collection of evidence by the police,” the Sessions Court clarified.

The order underscored that the ACJM failed to make such a distinction, instead issuing a directive that interfered with the Special Court's domain.

Premature Adjudication and the Need for Clarity

Beyond the primary jurisdictional issue, the Sessions Court also took exception to the Magistrate's substantive critique of the prosecution's conspiracy theory. Judge Singh observed that these remarks amounted to a premature judgment on the merits of a case still under trial.

“His (magistrate’s) assertion that the prosecution’s theory-building had numerous flaws and involved guesswork, assumptions and interpretation prematurely adjudicates the merits of an ongoing trial,” the order stated.

This serves as a stern reminder about the scope of judicial commentary from lower courts on matters pending before higher or specialized forums. The court also emphasized the need for absolute clarity in judicial pronouncements, especially those with the potential to affect personal liberty.

“Judicial orders, especially those affecting rights and potentially affecting someone’s liberty, must be unambiguous. Any such order that could impact someone’s rights and liberty must be explicit and free from conflicting interpretations,” the Sessions Court held.

Arguments and Legal Standpoints

Throughout the proceedings, the Delhi Police, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, maintained that Mr. Mishra's role had already been thoroughly investigated in connection with all 751 FIRs related to the riots, including the primary conspiracy case, and no evidence of his involvement was found. They further contended that a coordinated social media campaign, including the hashtag #ArrestKapilMishra, was part of a "narrative-building effort" to frame the BJP leader.

Mr. Mishra’s legal team argued that a "further probe" could not be initiated without the registration of a fresh FIR, a procedural point that found favour in the Sessions Court's reasoning.

Conversely, the complainant, Mohammad Ilyas, represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha, had sought the registration of an FIR against Mr. Mishra and several others, alleging their actions directly incited the violence.

Broader Implications for Criminal Procedure

This ruling is a significant case study on the procedural intricacies of large-scale criminal investigations involving multiple FIRs and specialized statutes like the UAPA. It delineates the authority of Magistrate Courts under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. in the context of ongoing trials in superior courts.

For legal practitioners, the order highlights the critical importance of framing complaints and prayers for relief with precision. The distinction between a prayer for a new FIR versus one for further investigation into an existing case proved to be the dispositive factor.

The decision also reinforces the hierarchical structure of the judiciary, cautioning against judicial overreach and premature commentary on the merits of a pending trial. The Sessions Court has now directed the Magistrate to rehear the original complaint filed by Mr. Ilyas and proceed in accordance with the law, leaving the door open for the complainant to argue his case for a separate FIR, provided he can establish that the alleged incident is not connected to the ongoing conspiracy trial.