Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Proceedings Against Nine Accused in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case

By Rajesh Pandey

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed petitions filed by nine accused persons seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Kanpur.

The Court observed that the large-scale violence that erupted after the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi constituted a “genocide” and a “crime against humanity,” and ruled that delays in recording witness statements or the absence of original police records cannot be valid grounds to terminate the prosecution.

Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, in a judgment dated March 24, rejected a group of petitions filed by Pradeep Agarwal and eight others, who had challenged the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kanpur Nagar.

The accused had sought quashing of the charges on the basis that the original case records were no longer available and that the delay in investigation prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

The Court emphasized that constitutional courts possess the authority to order a reinvestigation or a fresh investigation in appropriate cases.

It noted that the Supreme Court had already taken judicial notice of the seriousness of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and directed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to re-examine cases identified by it.

Referring to the material gathered during further investigation, the High Court observed that sufficient evidence exists to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

The Court held that merely because considerable time has elapsed since the incident cannot justify quashing criminal proceedings in a matter involving grave offences of such magnitude.

The Court noted that in all the cases under consideration, First Information Reports (FIRs) were lodged soon after the incidents occurred. However, final reports submitted earlier had exonerated the accused persons.

Subsequently, the Central Government constituted the Justice Nanavati Commission to investigate the riots.

Later, the Supreme Court appointed an SIT to conduct further investigation into the identified cases.

Based on the SIT’s findings, witnesses were examined, and charge sheets were filed, after which the competent court took cognizance of the offences.

Challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings, the accused argued that the absence of original documents such as FIRs, final reports, and post-mortem reports would make it impossible to conduct a fair trial.

They also contended that statements recorded by the SIT raised doubts about their identification and violated their right to fair procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Opposing the petitions, the state government argued that the Supreme Court had directed reinvestigation despite being fully aware that many original records were unavailable.

The state relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sajjan Kumar vs CBI, in which it was held that criminal trials relating to the 1984 riots should not be halted merely due to delay.

The High Court observed that the earlier final reports appeared to have been filed hastily, allegedly to shield those involved in the violence.

It also acknowledged that many original records had either been weeded out over time or destroyed by termites.

Despite this, the Court stressed that reconstructed FIRs and witness testimonies could still form the basis for prosecution.

Highlighting the gravity of the events, the Court remarked that the incidents were part of a wider pattern of violence targeting the Sikh community across the country following the assassination of Indira Gandhi.

It noted that numerous innocent persons were killed, burned alive, and their homes and properties looted or destroyed, describing the events as a large-scale crime against humanity.

Taking into account the reconstructed FIRs and clear witness statements identifying the accused as members of the violent mob, the High Court concluded that there was adequate material to proceed with the trial.

Accordingly, the petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings were dismissed, paving the way for continuation of the trial before the competent court.