New Delhi : 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 on .
The filing of the closure report by the investigating agency was protested by the victim’s counsel, who asked why was this 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 sessions 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.
The Court had directed CBI to also record the statements of witnesses, about whom it had come to know during the probe and who had claimed to be eye witnesses to the incident.
