The Wire Staff 
New Delhi: A Delhi court has directed that an FIR be registered against a former SHO of the Jyoti Nagar police station in New Delhi for his alleged role in an incident during the Delhi riots when police personnel were captured on video assaulting Muslim men and forcing them to sing the national anthem and Vande Mataram and to chant Jai Shri Ram.
“FIR be registered under sections 295-A/323/342/506 IPC against the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar (Mr. Tomar) who was holding the said post in February-March 2020,” the Court directed,” directed Magistrate Udbhav Kumar Jain of Karkardooma Court, reported Bar and Bench.
The offences mentioned against the officer include wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, hurt and religious insult under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“Current SHO is directed to depute a responsible officer not below the rank of Inspector to conduct investigation in the present matter and role of other unknown police officials involved in the commission of alleged offences,” added the court.
According to the complaint filed by one Mohd Waseem, he had stepped out of his house on February 24, 2020 in search of his mother during the riots’ situation and allegedly saw BJP leader Kapil Mishra leading an unlawful assembly and shooting at people.
He also allegedly saw policemen also supporting Kapil Mishra and others.
Waseem alleged that some police personnel, under instructions from the SHO, threw the complainant along with a few other injured people and assaulted them. They also made the complainant and others chant slogans like Jai Shri Ram and Vande Mataram.
The SHO later allegedly forced Waseem and his father to sign a paper carrying content not written by him and to make statements to the media under the SHO’s directions.
“Clearly, the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar, Mr. Tomar (complete name with post not provided) and other unknown police officials engaged themselves in hate crimes against the complainant/victim and they cannot be protected under the garb of sanction as alleged offences committed by them cannot be said to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge if their official duty,” the Court added.