Prerna Gala
Published on: 15 September 2022 at 19:36 IST
In view of its finding that 35 police officials assigned to the Highway Police Station in Mathura were accused of filing false cases against the accused in the FIR, the Allahabad High Court recently moved a police investigation involving two people to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and Scheduled Castes (SC) Commission were aware that Mathura District police personnel were filing false complaints against the petitioner’s family, according to a bench of Justices Suneet Kumar and Syed Waiz Mian.
“Having regard to the allegations made in the writ petition and the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Special Enquiry), Head Quarter Lucknow, it is evident that the police personnel of District Mathura have been stage managing to lodge false cases against the family members of the petitioner of which notice has been taken by the National Human Rights Commission and SC Commission,” it stated.
The court was considering a motion brought by two brothers to cancel an FIR that had been filed against unidentified individuals for the crime of kidnapping. They anticipated being arrested, so they asked the court to hand the inquiry over to the CBI.
They testified before the court that Mathura District police officers filed the contested FIR to prevent the petitioners from pressing an enquiry report in which 35 officers were found to be presumptively guilty of filing false cases against the petitioners and filed a number of false cases against them in an effort to put pressure on them.
According to the plea, two people made an attempt to kill the petitioners’ brother, Puneet, after which their mother, Maya Devi, went to the police and reported the incident. According to reports, instead of filing a FIR against the petitioners.
According to the plea, two people made an attempt to kill the petitioners’ brother, Puneet, after which their mother, Maya Devi, went to the police and reported the incident. According to allegations, the police arrested Puneet under Sections 151, 107, and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than filing a FIR against the two people (CrPC). Then Maya Devi submitted an application in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which led to the official registration of a crime.
The police officers, who were allegedly resentful, filed a FIR against the petitioners, Puneet and Maya Devi, in collaboration with the alleged perpetrators. Maya Devi complained to the NHRC about the officers’ behaviour, and they instructed them to file a case against two members of the Highway Police Station, Mathura.
Puneet was detained in two cases under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act a few years later. The petitioners, who are members of a socially marginalized group, contacted the SC Commission in Lucknow and claimed that the instances were fabricated.
The commission instructed a Special Inquiry Cell to investigate whether police officers were involved in the unlawful detention of the petitioners’ brother and the subsequent false accusations against him.
In accordance with the SC Commission’s instructions, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Special Enquiry), Head Quarters Lucknow, submitted a report in which a few police officers were, at least initially, suspected of being involved in the unlawful detention of the petitioners’ brother and the filing of fabricated charges against him in collaboration with the Senior Supervisory Officer.
Since no action was taken on the report, the petitioners went back to the SC Commission, who then asked the director general of the UP police for information on whether any action had been taken.
The petitioners claimed that after that, the contested FIR was filed against them, and they claimed that one of the police officers involved in filing the contested FIR, Harvendra Mishra, set up the complainants to file the contested FIR after his attempts to resolve the situation by pressuring the petitioners failed.
The complainants In the contested FIR, they have filed a plea asking for a fair probe into the situation.
The state counsel was unable to confirm whether disciplinary procedures were brought against the delinquent officials, and the court noted that despite instructions from the SC Commission, no action was taken against them.
“In the backdrop of the afore noted facts, the petitioners in both the writ petitions seek fair investigation; 35 police personnel have been held guilty of being involved in lodging false cases and procuring manufactured evidence against the petitioners and their family.”
“Till date, no action has been taken against those officials despite specific direction from the SC Commission. The learned State Counsel is unable to state as to whether disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the delinquent police personnel,” it stated.
Therefore, it ordered that the CBI take up the investigation into the contested FIR.