The State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) recommended the Maharashtra government to institute disciplinary proceedings against four policemen, including the Superintendent of Police (SP) Satara, over failing to lodge an FIR against a Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB) officer, who was accused of abusing and assaulting his junior in May 2024.
SPCA chairperson Justice (retired) Shrihari Davare, member Umakant Mitkar and retired IAS officer Vijay Satbir Singh, after hearing the complaint filed by Saikumar Suryakant Mehta, a junior SIB officer, on June 5 passed an order partly allowing the complaint against Satara SP Sameer Sheikh, Inspector Rajendra Masake, Sub-Inspector Avinash Gavli, and Assistant Inspector Amit Shitole, all then attached to Satara city police station.
The complainant, who is posted as junior intelligence officer in the affiliated office of SIB in Satara, on July 18, 2024 had approached the SPCA with a complaint claiming non-registration of FIR over the alleged incident of severe assault upon him by his superior officer Hitesh Inamke.
‘Cognisable offence committed, but NC lodged’
Mehta’s complaint before SPCA claimed that on May 11, 2024, his senior Inamke allegedly abused him in front of other employees in the office without any reason and severely assaulted him, leading to a fracture to the vertebra, causing a threat to his life.
Mehta initially complained to his department’s seniors in Pune and Mumbai the same day. But after no action was taken on his complaint, he eventually approached the Satara police after due medical examination and treatment and filed a complaint.
However, despite submitting medical reports and certificates, the police did not register an FIR in the matter, prompting Mehta to move SPCA.
Mehta’s complaint to SPCA stated that, though prima facie cognisable offence was committed by Inamke, the police personnel recorded a non-cognisable offence against him.
‘Injury not substantiated’
However, the police officers in question claimed before the SPCA that since the certificate dated June 13, 2024 issued by District General Hospital, Satara did not disclose any fracture to vertebra of the complainant and since the said certificate discloses only “simple injury” and did not disclose any external injury, they recorded a no-cognisable offence in the matter under sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC on June 21, 2024.
The police officers conducted an inquiry and recorded the statements of witnesses — staff in the office of Mehta — as well as seized CCTV footage from the office.
Besides, they also issued a notice under the CrPC to Inamke on August 25, 2024.
The police officers claimed before the authority that they were neither involved in serious violation of provision of law nor they abused their lawful authorities, and have not committed any misconduct as alleged by Mehta.
The police officers opposed Mehta’s allegations and submitted that though the alleged incident occurred on May 11, 2024, Mehta lodged the complaint 14 days later.
The policemen further submitted that despite Mehta’s claim that he sustained fracture to vertebra during the assault, it was not substantiated by the medical papers of Satara Civil Hospital, produced by the complainant.
Referring to other diagnostic reports submitted by the complainant, the policemen argued that the reports admittedly belonged to private hospitals and they were contrary to each other and in the absence of the report from the Civil Hospital categorically showing the fracture to vertebra of the complainant, the police were unable to register the FIR immediately as per the guidelines issued by the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs State of UP.
‘Serious violation of law’
After hearing both the sides, citing conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs state of UP and others, the SPCA found that by not lodging a cognisable offence, the four police officers have committed the serious violation of provision of law or abused of their respective lawful authorities as contemplated under section 22Q (1)(a)(viii) of the Maharashtra Police (Amendment & Continuance) Act, 2014 and they have committed the misconduct as prescribed under the Regulation No.2(n) of the Regulations, 2017.
In the order, SPCA stated that the state government should treat the same as preliminary inquiry for the purpose of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the four policemen and the state government or the competent authority shall direct the institution of disciplinary proceedings or any other legal action against the said delinquent police officers.
The authority has exonerated a fifth policeman as the complaint could not be established against him.
The SPCA has also directed that the copy of the present judgment be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, who shall circulate the conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP & Anr. among all the police stations/police chowkies in the state categorically directing them to observe and follow the same.
The complainant, who is posted as junior intelligence officer in the affiliated office of SIB in Satara, on July 18, 2024 had approached the SPCA with a complaint (File) 
Share
