MSHRC: Why no penal action against 3 cops accused of extorting jeweller

The Indian Express had on March 21 published a report on Mumbai Police initiating a departmental inquiry against a police sub-inspector and two other police constables of Azad Maidan police station for allegedly extorting money from a 33-year-old jeweller from south Mumbai under the guise of arresting him in a theft case.

The jeweller, Nishant Jain, who had filed the police complainant, had also lodged a complaint with the State Human Right Commission.

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the commission took up the inquiry and through its division bench, issued summons to the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone 1) to conduct an inquiry and file their affidavit in reply.

The division bench observed that the three erring officers identified as sub-inspector Kajal Pansare and the two constables Rajesh Palkar and Sudarshan Puri were found guilty in the “so-called departmental inquiry” and the only action proposed against them is of stoppage of two years’ increment.

“We fail to understand as to how the seriousness and gravity of their alleged misconduct escape the notice of supervisory authorities as, for the reasons best known to them, no penal action under Section 384 Indian Penal Code, for extortion, came to be taken against them,” the commission observed during the proceedings.

It further said, “At the same time such action raises serious question as to whether the law enforcing agency has some different approach in registering offences under penal action against its officers or they have their own Indian Penal Code.”

The commission further observed “blatant” and “casual approach” on the part of Commissioner of Police and it tantamounts to disobedience of their direction and warranting issuance of show cause notice under section 166 A of the Indian Penal Code.

“By our directions of 12.03.2023 we called upon the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to hold a fact-finding inquiry in coordination with Dy.Commissioner of Police, zone – I but nowhere in the report it is mentioned that the inquiry and the report is submitted in consultation with the Commissioner of Police. In fact, the reports seems to have been submitted even without showing to the Commissioner of Police as his endorsement also does not appear on it,” the commission said during the proceedings.

Hence, the state human rights commission directed the DGP to seek explanation from the Commissioner of Mumbai Police as to why penal action under Section 166A Indian Penal Code should not be initiated against him for disobedience of their directions.

The commission has further directed the police to submit the CCTV footage of Azad Maidan police station of March 1 between 8.45 p.m. to 10.15 p.m., when the alleged incident of extortion took place.

“Senior Police Inspector Nitin S. Tadakhe, Azad Maidan Police Station, is directed to apprise Director General of Police, State of Maharashtra about our present direction within one week and make available the entire record of the present matter to its office,” the commission said in its order.