The Bombay Excessive Court docket on Wednesday stayed the December 2024 order of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Fee (MSHRC) that directed Mumbai Commissioner of Police (CP) and others to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to 33-year-old jeweller who was “illegally” detained by police officers.
The three officers from Azad Maidan Police station in South Mumbai had allegedly extorted Rs 25,000 from the jeweller by threatening implicating him in a false case.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela Ok Gokhale handed an order on writ petition filed by Mumbai C P Vivek Phansalkar and Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Zone 1 Pravin Mundhe in opposition to the MSHRC order pronounced on December 3, 2024 and December 18 letter by MSHRC secretary looking for compliance of panel’s instructions.
As per complainant Nishant Jain (33), who runs a jewelry store in South Mumbai, officers from the mentioned police station went to the store round 8.40 pm on March 1, 2024 on the pretext of an inquiry in reference to a case associated to a stolen bracelet, which in keeping with them, was bought by Jain from a girl.
The complainant claimed that the bracelet was mortgaged at his store by its proprietor and confirmed the receipts of the transaction.
Nevertheless, police officers allegedly requested him to go to Azad Maidan police station and detained him and threatened him of lodging a prison case in opposition to him, demanding Rs 50,000 to keep away from arrest. Jain claimed that he was allowed to go away the police station solely after he paid them Rs 25,000.
Alleging psychological and bodily torture by the police, he made criticism to senior law enforcement officials and MSHRC. A departmental inquiry was initiated and three police officers had been punished with “two years of increment stoppage”.
Story continues under this advert
A two-member bench of Justice (Retd) KK Tated (the then chairperson of MSHRC) and M A Sayeed in December, 2024 resolution requested the state Director Common of Police (DGP) and Mumbai CP to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to the complainant. The panel additionally requested Mumbai CP to think about and direct the involved police station to register FIR beneath part 308 (punishment for extortion) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) in opposition to the police officers involved.
Citing an “alarming rise in such incidents on the police stations”, the human rights panel had steered the police to carry periodic seminars “to sensitise the police pressure within the state” and to give attention to growing sense of duty and courtesy in coping with residents and victims who take a look at them as protectors of regulation.
On Wednesday, senior advocate Shirish Gupte and advocate Rameez Shaikh, representing the Mumbai CP and DCP Zone-1, mentioned that the MSHRC order was “patently unlawful” and the identical needs to be quashed and put aside.
The petition said that the MSHRC, whereas coping with the problem “ought to not have thought of that each occasion of informal police inquiry can’t be termed as human rights violation” and may have thought of that the upper authorities acted diligently and two separate inquiries had been performed within the matter.
Story continues under this advert
The plea added that each the inquiring authorities “gave clear findings and conclusions of their stories that there was completely no proof of bodily or verbal abuse, demand/acceptance of cash to corroborate allegations of the complainant”. It additionally mentioned that the Fee on November 29, 2024 failed to present alternative to the lawyer representing Mumbai CP to argue his case, earlier than it closed the matter.
Responding to the rivalry that the police had not taken prison motion in opposition to the delinquent officers for extortion, Gupte responded that the matter was forwarded to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to take applicable motion. The bench additionally referred to previous HC selections that had stayed MSHRC orders directing the police to pay compensation.
After the state authorities lawyer sought time to answer the plea, the HC posted the matter to June 10 and requested Advocate Common Birendra Saraf to help it on the mentioned date. It famous, “Within the meantime, the impugned order dated December 3, 2024 handed by MSHRC is stayed until subsequent date.”
After the state authorities lawyer sought time to answer the plea, the HC posted the matter to June 10 and sought Advocate Common Birendra Saraf’s help on the mentioned date
