08, May 2017
October 19, 2005
Â‘Mera bees saal ka bacche
ko police ne nanga kar ke bithaya, peeth mod kar, goliyon mar mar kar
police ne khatm kiya. Aaj bhi hamara case wase hee pada hai, sessions
court mein.Â” (My 20 year old son was stripped naked by the police,
asked to bent down after which the police shot him dead, Even today my
case languishes in the sessions court)
—Zahid Kadri, father
giving testimony at a public hearing in New Delhi on April 16, 2005
Justice B N Mehta of the Gujarat
High Court has directed the magistrate to submit a report to explain the
delay in issuing summons to 17 policemen accused of the cold blooded
murder of a 20 year old on may 7, 2002. The matter has been posted for 21st
Zahid Kadri, father of a young
man shot dead allegedly by the Ahmedabad police in May 2002 has approached
the Gujarat High Court along with the Citizens for Justice and Peace
alleging unnecessary delay in the lower courts in issuing summons against
the policemen allegedly responsible for the merciless killing. The matter,
a special criminal application came up before Justice B.N. Mehta of the
Gujarat High Court today.
The petition has prayed for an
appropriate writ, order or direction to examine the records of the
proceedings in Criminal Inquiry Case No. 29/2002 pending before the court
of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 15, Ahmedabad and also requests
that the High Court orders expeditious trial. The petitioners have prayed
for a hearing on a day to day basis in the interest of the justice.
The petitioners have also prayed
for the High Court to call for a report from the Metropolitan Magistrate
Court No. 15, Ahmedabad and ascertain the steps taken by the Ld.
Magistrate for serving of the summons to the accused since 25/07/2002. The
petitioner also prays that orders are given by the High Court against any
further delay in the matter.
The petitioner no.1, Zahid Kadri
is the original complainant in Criminal Complaint filed as Inquiry Case
No. 29 of 2002 with Learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 15,
Ahmedabad dated 24/06/2002. The said complaint is still, after three
years still at the inquiry stage and is being adjourned unnecessarily.
The 20 year old son of Zahid
Kadri was a victim of brutal police firing on May 7, 2002. Farhan alias
Raju Zahidhusein Kadri was killed in cold blood in an allegedly brutal
incident of police violence. Despite several attempts of the petitioner
no.1 no FIR was registered against the accused police personnel.
Ultimately the father of deceased i.e., approached the court of Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate by way of filing criminal complaint which is
ironically pending for want of service of summons to police personnel.
The complaint was filed in June 2002 and the FIR in the case is F.I.R. No.
117/02. There are three eyewitnesses in the case.
Mr Zahid Kadri filed a private
complaint against 17 policemen following the brute killing of his son. The
complaint in the sessions court is against MK Tandan, then Joint Police
Commissioner, Ahmedabad at present at Surat as Joint Police Commissioner;
Jobalia, Deputy Police
Commissioner, Zone No. 6, B. R. Khokhar, Police Inspector,
Maninagar Police Station, among
others. The allegation in the complaint is that police
personnel have actively connived
in the filling.
On 24/06/2002 the Ld. Magistrate
directed to place the complaint before the Regular Presiding Magistrate.
It appears that on the date of the filing of the complaint the regular
presiding officer was on leave. Thereafter on 01/07/2002 the Ld.
Magistrate directed to record the verification of the complainant and the
same was being done on the same date. That after recording the
verification of the complainant the Ld. Magistrate directed to register
the complaint in the Criminal Inquiry Register and further was pleased to
order inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Thereafter the application for
issuance of summons to the accused police personnel was allowed on
25/07/2002. But thereafter the complaint has remained static at that
stage merely for want of service of the summons to the accused persons who
are police personnel. The Learned Magistrate has followed the procedure
provided in the criminal procedure code and has neither initiated any
steps to serve the summons to the government officers, nor has the Ld.
Magistrate tried to inquire the reasons as to why the summons are not
being served till date. The last time-impugned complaint was listed on
24/08/2005 and the Learned Magistrate has adjourned the same to 17/12/2005
without recording any reasons. The petitioners have expressed strong
apprehension that the summons are not being served till date merely
because all the accused persons in the impugned complaint are police
personnel and the accused persons have managed to prolonged the matter.
The petitioners respectfully state that the provisions of sec. 62, 64, 65,
66 and 67 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ought to have been
considered by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Hence the
petitioners have approached the Gujarat High Court for directions to the
Magistrate to decide the fate of the complaint and complete the trial.
Senior advocate Suhel Tirmizi
appeared for the petitioners.
Giving sound grounds for this
petition, the petitioners have alleged that the deliberate delay of this
case in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate since 25/07/2002 clearly
shows that the matter was adjourned time and again only for want of
service of summons to the accused police personnel. Reasons for
adjournment were not recorded. This, the petitioner is a material error
committed by the lower court in not inquiring about the reasons for the
summons not being served upon the government officials for such a long
period. The petitioners state that the court of the Ld. Magistrate has
not shown the Â“willÂ” and Â“wisdomÂ” to see that the provisions as envisaged
under the Code Of Criminal Procedure be followed. It is under these facts
and circumstances it is necessary to call for the report of the Magistrate
as to why the summons have not been served and be further pleased to
direct the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to expedite the further
proceedings of the impugned complaint.
The petitioner states that it
appears that the State Machinery wants to prolong the trial and thereafter
pray for dropping the proceedings if the trial gets prolonged for longer
time merely on the ground of delay. Thus, this is a fit case for
directing the Learned Magistrate to decide the Criminal Inquiry Case No.
29 of 2002 as expeditiously as possible, preferably by hearing the case on
day to day basis from today, in the interest of the justice.
Under the code, if after pasting
the summons, if the accused remain absent, bailable warrants and then
non-bailable warrants needed to have been issued. The petitioners have
argued that it is a well settled principle of law that criminal case is
required to be given priority, more particularly, in serious cases where
the accused are facing the charges u/s 302 IPC and where due to efflux of
time the witnesses might lose his memory or be compelled to succumbed to
the pressure from the accused. The petitioners have cited several
judgements in support of their contention. The petition may be seen at