In a significant development, Delhi Police opposed the plea by accused individuals seeking to delay the arguments on charge until the ongoing investigation is completed. The accused had moved the court, citing the need for additional time due to supplementary charge sheets still being filed.
Delhi Police, represented by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, argued that the right to further investigation is an unfettered right, as recognized by the Delhi High Court. They contended that there is no legal provision allowing the deferment of arguments on charges as requested by the accused.
Prasad emphasised that the applications were filed with the clear intent to delay the trial, which has already been postponed since September 11, 2023.
The police maintained that the judgments relied upon by the applicants did not support their case.
Instead, they referred to a Delhi High Court judgement that underscored the unfettered nature of further investigation rights. Additionally, a Supreme Court judgement was cited to argue that once a chargesheet is filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the proceedings can continue without waiting for supplementary charge sheets.
The police further relied on another Delhi High Court judgement, which held that arguments on charge could proceed even while additional materials were being awaited. In such situations, if any new material emerged, the accused could make additional submissions, as seen in the plea of Arun Ramchandra Pillai.
The prosecution accused the defence of filing the application with malafide intent to delay the trial. On January 31, 2024, the counsel for accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita argued that despite four years since the registration of the FIR and the filing of multiple charge sheets, the investigation by Delhi Police remained incomplete.
Advocate Adit S. Pujari, representing Narwal and Kalita, contended that the investigation should not remain pending by the time charges are framed against the accused. Pujari highlighted that the police investigation had been ongoing for four years, with many individuals languishing in jail.
He referred to submissions by Delhi Police in other riot cases, where they stated that arguments on charges could commence once the investigation was completed.
Pujari argued that further investigation could not be conducted without permission and that the police needed to obtain such permission. He asserted that the alleged ‘larger conspiracy’ case should not proceed until the prosecution clarified the status of the conspiracy and the individuals involved.
The FIR in this case was registered on March 6, 2020. Delhi Police have since filed a final report and four supplementary charge sheets. Despite 42 months of investigation, the police stated in their latest supplementary charge sheet that the investigation was ongoing.
The counsel for the accused pointed out that previous charge sheets had indicated that the criminal conspiracy was continuing, and no subsequent supplementary charge sheet had concluded that the conspiracy was complete.
The defence argued that for any discharge arguments, it was crucial for the prosecution to clarify the status of their investigation. They expressed concern that if arguments on charge began based on the current material, the prosecution could later introduce additional material to address gaps highlighted by the defence, thereby disadvantaged the accused.
The court had earlier directed that arguments on charges be heard on a daily basis, and the matter has now been listed for arguments in rebuttal by the defence counsel on August 8.
Follow us
