Skip to main content

1984 riots: CBI files closure report in case against Tytler

 The filing of the closure report by the investigating agency was protested by the victim’s counsel, who asked why this was done "secretly".


For the third time in a row, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed closure report in a case against senior Congress leader Jagdish Tytler in connection with 1984 anti-Sikh riots in a Delhi court, which issued notice to the victim.


The filing of the closure report by the investigating agency was protested by the victim’s counsel, who asked why this was done “secretly”.


The CBI said it has conducted further probe in the case, as directed by a sessions court, and filed a closure report in the matter. In April 2013, CBI was directed by a session’s court to further investigate the case as it set aside its earlier closure report.


Tytler had earlier got clean-chit twice from the CBI which had closed the case.


The latest closure report was filed before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who marked it to Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler.


ACMM Laler issued notice for March 27 to the victim and complainant, Lakhvinder Kaur, whose husband Badal Singh was killed during the 1984 riots.


The court said “perusal of record revealed that the cancellation report was also filed earlier as regards accused Jagdish Tytler”.


“Accordingly, court notice be issued to Lakhvinder Kaur regarding present closure report in view of judgment of the Supreme Court.... for March 27,” the ACMM said.


Senior advocate H S Phoolka, representing the riot victims, expressed displeasure over the CBI’s move of filing the closure report.


“Why is it being done so secretly? Even the complainant has not been informed about it. It has been filed secretly.


This shows an attempt has been made to get the closure report accepted by the court in hush-hush manner,” Phoolka said.


He said the closure report was filed on December 24, 2014 and he had come to know about it today itself and that too, unofficially through another lawyer, while the victim has not been informed till now.


The sessions court on April 10, 2013 had set aside CBI’s closure report giving clean chit to Tytler and ordered reopening of investigation into the killing of three persons.


CBI had earlier opposed the plea for further probe as the court found fault with the investigation by the agency which had not examined the available witnesses.

.


LEXIS AND COMPANY

"ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS"

We are India’s Leading Law Firm

“The firm has always strives to create and implement innovative and effective methods of providing cost-effective, quality representation and services for our clients and will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our valued clients.”


–    DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA (ADVOCATE, FOUNDER-LEXIS AND COMPANY).


Get in Touch


LEXIS AND COMPANY.

C/O: DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA.

OFFICE: A1B/26, JANAKPURI, GROUND FLOOR,

NEW DELHI,, DELHI, 110058.

INDIA.

lexisandcompany@gmail.com

CALL: +91-9830333388.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct