Mumbai police face legal action over corruption inaction

Mumbai court orders criminal charges against top cops for ignoring corruption

Mumbai: The sessions court has raised a need for 'bold orders' against the high-ranking officers, avoiding to do their duties. Such an act can constitute criminal offence, the session judge said while directing the magistrate court to proceed against senior police officials including former director general of police of the state, Satish Mathur and other senior officers.

Investigation Lapses Highlighted

The additional sessions judge Mujibodeen S. Shaikh said, the anti-corruption laws have been enacted. However, acts of commission and omission, lack of expertise and delay in investigation are the vital reasons.

Revision Petition Hearing

The court was hearing the revision petition filed by businessman and activist Kamlakar Shenoy against the order of dismissal of his complaint filed before the metropolitan magistrate court, Dadar. He had approached the magistrate court in 2017 against Mathur, and other officers namely Keshav Patil, then additional commissioner of police, Ranjan Bhogle then additional Superintendent of Police Ranjan Bhogle for not registering his complaint.

Court Allows Petition

The court has allowed the petition filed by Shenoy and ordered magistrate to act against the officers under 166 A (public servant disobeying directions under law), 217 (public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law to save a person) and 218 (public servant farming incorrect records or writing with intent to save person) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegations Against Officials

Shenoy had moved a complaint before the magistrate court against these police officers for failure to act against the officers of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Officers of Mumbai Buildings Repairs and Reconstructions Board. The activists had claimed that he had sought to book the government officials for not taking action against the developers who had not surrendered surplus area admeasuring 1,37,322.53 sq.mt, which he alleged, caused a loss of Rs 14,000 crores to the government.

Police Inaction Alleged

Shenoy claimed that the police failed to register the case and conducted an inquiry. When asked, he was told that a legal opinion has been sought on the issue. Shenoy claimed that the act of the accused for seeking opinion of the department where the proposed accused work and conducting the discreet inquiry, is illegal.

Magistrate Complaint Dismissed

As the police failed to act against the officials of MHADA and respective authorities, Shenoy had approached the magistrate court to prosecute these senior police officials for their failure to lodge the case. However, the magistrate court had dismissed his complaint, hence he approached the sessions court.

Delay In FIR Registration

Shenoy argued that when the public servants abuse their position causing loss to the government it amounts to a serious aspect. 'The report amounting to cognizable offence was given to the respondents and they being police Officers and public servants should have registered the First Information Report (FIR). However, the respondents kept the complaint pending up to 25 months," Shenoy contended.

Inquiry Used As Cover

He argued that the respondents have consciously avoided to register the FIR against the concerned Officials of MHADA, under the garb of inquiry though the information discloses commission of cognizable offences.

Defense Argument Presented

The defense lawyer for these senior officers contended that as against the allegations, action had been initiated. It was argued that they had sought permission to hold open inquiry against these officials but the same was denied and discreet inquiry was initiated. It is claimed that the offence cannot be registered directly against the public servant without seeking permission from the competent authority or State Government.

Court Observes Negligence

The court after hearing this noted that the officials had been making inquiries for more than two years. On this the court said, "the act of the respondents come under the omission to consider the prevailing laws and another facet of negligent or dereliction of duty,"

Failure To Act Promptly

"When there is ample evidence, that the MHADA Officials in collusion with the developers caused wrongful loss to the government, then it was the duty of respondents to register the FIR immediately and to start the inquiry to find out the truth in the matter. However, the respondents avoided their responsibility and duty and chose to take the opinion from the Principal Secretary of the Housing Department," the court further noted.

Prima Facie Offence Made

The court further noted that, "After considering the entire fact and circumstances, it becomes crystal clear that under the garb of preliminary inquiry continues years together the respondents showed utter disregard to the mandate of law and provisions and therefore, prima facilely committed the offence."

Strong Message To Officials

"In such set up circumstances time has come to pass the bold order to teach the lesson to the public servant working on the higher positions of Government, if they avoided their Official duty showing utter disregard to the law of land then their act can constitute criminal offence. So also, the time has come to give a strong message to the Executive Officers/ Bureaucrats that their omission and inaction to take proper action at appropriate time is causing serious issues regarding the economy of the Country as well as economy of the State," the court said.

No One Above Law

"Now the time has also come to make it clear that no one is above the law and law does not protect the white-collar persons who are using their Office/designation to protect the Officers deeply involved in wrongful gain for them and wrongful loss for the State," the court said.