New Delhi [India], November 10 : The Rouse Avenue court on Monday allowed the revision petitions moved by Law Minister Kapil Mishra and the Delhi police. The magistrate's order set aside the order, directing the Delhi police to investigate the role of Kapil Mishra in the North East Delhi Conspiracy case.
Special judge Dig Vinay Singh set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) to the extent of the incident of February 23. Delhi Police had submitted that it had already inquired about the role of Kapil Mishra in the conspiracy of riots and it had found nothing against Kapil Mishra.
The special court has directed the trial court to conduct a hearing on the complaint in accordance with the law.
A Magistrate court in April 2025 had directed Delhi Police to further investigate the role of Kapil Mishra and others in connection with the conspiracy of the Delhi riots of 2020. Mishra had challenged the order.
Delhi Police had also challenged the order of the trial court before the Sessions Court.
On September 25, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi reserved its order on petitions filed by BJP leader Kapil Mishra and the Delhi Police, challenging a trial court's directive for further investigation into the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North East Delhi Violence.
The directive for further investigation was issued by a Magistrate's court based on a complaint filed by Mohd. Ilyas.
In response, the Delhi Police, through Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, contended that Mishra had already been investigated and no incriminating evidence was found.
He had further alleged that there was a coordinated attempt to frame him, citing WhatsApp group chats and social media campaigns such as #ArrestKapilMishra as part of a narrative-building effort.
In their written submissions, the police referred to the chargesheet and highlighted discussions within WhatsApp groups, such as DPSG, suggesting that certain individuals were actively promoting a narrative against Mishra.
Delhi Police had maintained that, despite a thorough investigation, Mishra's name did not appear in any of the 751 FIRs registered in connection with the riots.
During earlier proceedings, the Court had instructed the police to provide the chargesheet in digital format to all respondents. It also continued an interim stay on the trial court's order for further investigation. Mishra's legal team argued that no further probe could be initiated without registering a fresh FIR, while the police questioned the jurisdiction of the magistrate, noting that the case was already under the purview of a special court.
The trial court issued the direction in response to a complaint filed by Iliyas. Advocate Mehmood Pracha represented him.