Bombay HC Orders Inquiry Into Complaint Alleging Non-Payment Of Bill By Police Officers For Purchase Of Electronic Goods
The Bombay High Court has recently ordered the Director General of Police, Thane to appoint a suitable police officer from the State C.I.D. to look into a complaint made by a supplier alleging that he had supplied air-conditioners, water coolers, computers, LED TV, printers to Kasarvadavali police station but he was not given his money in spite of constantly pursuing his demands.
The petitioner had also approached the High Court for quashing of an FIR registered against him in light of settlement of a personal dispute. While considering the said petition, the Court noticed that a complaint had been submitted to the Commissioner of Police by a supplier-petitioner in which there were specific allegations against particular police officers.
Noting the seriousness of the matter, the Division Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Dr.Neela Gokhale observed, “...if the allegations are true, some serious action needs to be taken.”
Advocate Sachin Thorat represented the petitioner while the State and the Complainant were represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish I. Satpute and Advocate Dnyaneshwari S. Utpat respectively.
The FIR, in this case, was lodged by the Complainant alleging that the Petitioner-Supplier on two occasions, took delivery of nine air-conditioners and five air-conditioners for selling it further by representing to the informant that he has his own shop and he would sell them on commission. After delivery was taken by the Petitioner, some excuses were made and the price of the air-conditioners was not paid. The cheques which were given were dishonoured and thus the informant suffered losses to the tune of Rs 4,24,900.
However, the matter was settled between the parties and it was mentioned in the consent affidavit that the Complainant had no objection for quashing the FIR and the resulting pending trial.
Noting that the dispute between the parties was purely personal and commercial in nature, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the F.I.R in question, The Bench also permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs.4,24,900 which he had deposited earlier in the Court.
The Bench, however, noticed one disturbing fact that the Petitioner had annexed a complaint submitted to the Commissioner of Police in which there were specific allegations against the particular police officers. It was the petitioner’s case that he had supplied air-conditioners, water coolers, computers, LED TV, printers etc. to Kasarvadavali police station, Thane and personally to a particular police officer. He was not given his money in spite of constantly pursuing his demands. It was submitted by the petitioner that his articles were returned but he had suffered heavy losses because of this, which resulted in his default in making payment to the first informant.
In view of such factual aspects, the Bench said, “First of all it is hard to understand as to how the police officers from a particular police station can take such expensive articles from a private party without following due procedure. Secondly, if the allegations are true, some serious action needs to be taken.”
The Bench thus ordered the Director General of Police to appoint a suitable police officer from the State C.I.D. of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police or of equal rank to conduct an inquiry in the complaint. Placing the matter on February 5, 2025 for further consideration, the Bench also directed the said appointed Officer to conduct an inquiry within a period of three months and submit a report.
Cause Title: Nainesh Manilal Panchal Vs The State of Maharashtra and others [Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:42586-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Sachin Thorat
Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish I. Satpute and Advocate Dnyaneshwari S. Utpat.