The Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed the December 2024 order of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (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 officials.
The three officials 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 K Gokhale passed an order on writ petition filed by Mumbai C P Vivek Phansalkar and Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Zone 1 Pravin Mundhe against the MSHRC order pronounced on December 3, 2024 and December 18 letter by MSHRC secretary seeking compliance of panel’s directions.
As per complainant Nishant Jain (33), who runs a jewellery shop in South Mumbai, officials from the said police station went to the shop around 8.40 pm on March 1, 2024 on the pretext of an inquiry in connection with a case related to a stolen bracelet, which according to them, was purchased by Jain from a woman.
The complainant claimed that the bracelet was mortgaged at his shop by its owner and showed the receipts of the transaction.
However, police officials allegedly asked him to visit Azad Maidan police station and detained him and threatened him of lodging a criminal case against him, demanding Rs 50,000 to avoid arrest. Jain claimed that he was allowed to leave the police station only after he paid them Rs 25,000.
Alleging mental and physical torture by the police, he made complaint to senior police officers and MSHRC. A departmental inquiry was initiated and three police officials were punished with “two years of increment stoppage”.
Story continues below this ad
A two-member bench of Justice (Retd) KK Tated (the then chairperson of MSHRC) and M A Sayeed in December, 2024 decision asked the state Director General of Police (DGP) and Mumbai CP to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to the complainant. The panel also asked Mumbai CP to consider and direct the concerned police station to register FIR under section 308 (punishment for extortion) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) against the police officials concerned.
Citing an “alarming rise in such incidents at the police stations”, the human rights panel had suggested the police to hold periodic seminars “to sensitise the police force in the state” and to focus on developing sense of responsibility and courtesy in dealing with citizens and victims who look at them as protectors of law.
On Wednesday, senior advocate Shirish Gupte and advocate Rameez Shaikh, representing the Mumbai CP and DCP Zone-1, said that the MSHRC order was “patently illegal” and the same should be quashed and set aside.
The petition stated that the MSHRC, while dealing with the issue “ought not to have considered that every instance of casual police inquiry cannot be termed as human rights violation” and should have considered that the higher authorities acted diligently and two separate inquiries were conducted in the matter.
Story continues below this ad
The plea added that both the inquiring authorities “gave clear findings and conclusions in their reports that there was absolutely no evidence of physical or verbal abuse, demand/acceptance of money to corroborate allegations of the complainant”. It also said that the Commission on November 29, 2024 failed to give opportunity to the lawyer representing Mumbai CP to argue his case, before it closed the matter.
Responding to the contention that the police had not taken criminal action against the delinquent officials for extortion, Gupte responded that the matter was forwarded to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to take appropriate action. The bench also referred to past HC decisions that had stayed MSHRC orders directing the police to pay compensation.
After the state government lawyer sought time to respond to the plea, the HC posted the matter to June 10 and asked Advocate General Birendra Saraf to assist it on the said date. It noted, “In the meantime, the impugned order dated December 3, 2024 passed by MSHRC is stayed till next date.”
After the state government lawyer sought time to respond to the plea, the HC posted the matter to June 10 and sought Advocate General Birendra Saraf’s assistance on the said date