Navi Mumbai police officers are charged before Supreme Court under Contempt and other criminal offences for violating Supreme Court orders and infringing on the fundamental rights of a female government transport officer by harassing and humiliating her.
The petition demands six months imprisonment for the guilty police officers under the Contempt of Court Act and a temporary compensation of ₹50 lakh for the victim.
Few evidences of attempts of extortion by Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Amit Kale and his team has been presented to the Supreme Court, requesting a CBI inquiry. Several senior transport officers are prepared to provide additional evidence if needed.
There is talk that Police Commissioner Milind Bharambe and other officers are in trouble due to misadventure done by DCP Sh. Amit Kale. The District and Sessions Judge and the Magistrate’s orders have revealed serious crimes and human rights violations by the police officers against the transport officers.
Previously, the Supreme Court sentenced Police Commissioner M.S. Ahlawat and some officers to one and a half years imprisonment for contempt of court and filing false affidavits to save fellow officers [Afzal v. State of Haryana, (1996) 7 SCC 397].
Recently, the High Court sent police officers, including an IPS officer of commissioner rank, to jail for four weeks for violating Supreme Court orders during an investigation [Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. A.R. Srinivas, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1190].
The petition seeks criminal action against the guilty officers under various sections of the IPC such as 166,167,211,220,409,107,120(B),34 etc. and sec 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sections 145(2), 147,148 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
The unity of transport officers has put the guilty police officers in a tight spot.
All court orders till date went against Navi Mumbai police.
Various women’s organizations, the Supreme Court Lawyers Association, and many other lawyer associations extended their support to the victim transport officers.
The petitioner demands the immediate transfer of the accused police officers outside the district and their appointment to non-executive positions.
National President of the Indian Bar Association, Adv. Nilesh Ojha, former judge Adv. Omkar Kakade, President of the Supreme Court Lawyers Association, Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, along with Adv. Vivek Ramteke from the ‘All India S.C., S.T. and Minority Lawyers Association,’ Adv. Tanveer Nizam, Adv. Ghansham Upadhyay, Adv. Vijay Kurle, Adv. Chaitanya Raote, Adv. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Prateek Jain, Adv. Vikas Pawar, Adv. Praveen Chavre, Adv. Gopal Kanhale, and from the ‘Indian Women Lawyers Association,’ Adv. Deepali Ojha, Adv. Snehal Surve, and Adv. Hania Sheikh, Adv. Meena Thakur along with many other prominent lawyers, will represent the transport officer’s case.
Other transport officers are expected to file similar petitions in the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court soon.
The petition also demands police protection for the petitioner, her witnesses, and her lawyers, holding the accused police responsible if they face any harassment or pressure.
There are indications that the petitioner may take a lenient stance towards Police Commissioner Milind Bharambe, who could be pardoned by the Supreme Court if he takes action against the guilty officers.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly directed that police should ensure no violation of fundamental rights, especially of women, during investigations. Courts have imposed fines and ordered criminal action, including imprisonment and departmental inquiries resulting in their transfer, suspension, dismissal of the officers who violated these directives.
Despite these directives, some police officers still violate the Supreme Court’s orders, as seen in the recent case involving extortion by police officers led by DCP Amit Kale against government transport officers.
On March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court reprimanded Maharashtra police officers and while granting compensation to the victim have warned entire police force to follow all the guidelines of Supreme Court and protect citizens’ fundamental rights during investigations, arrests and remand [Somnath vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 338].
Under the Criminal Procedure Code, there is specific provision that any investigation involving a female accused must be conducted at her residence in the presence of family members. Police officers violating said provision can be punished under IPC sections 166, 341, and 220, and sections 145(2), 147 of the Maharashtra Act. And Police officers who violate Supreme Court orders can be imprisoned for six months under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 [Nandini Satpathy Vs. P L Dani (1978)2 SCC 424, Raja Ram v. State of Haryana, (1971) 3 SCC 945, D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State (2014) 8 SCC 273].
However, DCP Amit Kale and his team illegally registered an FIR and summoned a female transport officer to Navi Mumbai, 650 km away, three times for investigation. When the officer resisted their extortion attempts, they illegally arrested her to pressure her into paying them.
The Magistrate in his order dated 1.05.2024 had strongly condemned the Navi Mumbai Police for their illegality and rejected the police’s request for remand, stating that the arrest is in violation of Supreme Court guidelines.
Angered by this, the police added further charges to harass the transport officer, but the District and Sessions Court granted her bail, noting that no criminal charges applied to her and other public servants. This was a great slap on guilty and erring police officers who think themselves to be above the law.
Based on these incidents, transport officer Bhagyashree Patil filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court. This could lead to serious criminal charges against the police officers and a CBI investigation. The accused officers face fines, imprisonment for contempt of court, and possible dismissal from the police force.
The petition names the following police officers as accused:
1. Amit Kale, Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP)
2. Shashikant Chandekar, Senior Police Inspector
3. Ajaykumar Landge, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch
4. Pratap Desai, Assistant Police Inspector
5. Deepak Sakore, Additional Commissioner of Police
6. Milind Bharambe, Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai
7. Sanjay Reddy, Assistant Police Inspector
The illegal FIR no. 72 of 2024 registered at APMC Police Station in Navi Mumbai is in violation of Supreme Court orders because the case is related with the false documents given to the office of RTO and the main offence attracted is sec. 182 of IPC and as per procedure laid down in sec 195 of Cr. P. C. only the office of RTO can file complaint in Court and police are not entitled to register FIR and file charge sheet. The High Court and Supreme Court had quashed many FIRs, investigation, charge sheet, cognizance and even convictions by the courts on this ground alone. [State of Haryana v. Shagun, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 1, Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206, In Shrinath Gangadhar Giram v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10118 , Dr. S. Dutt vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 523]
The magistrate ruled the arrests violated Supreme Court directives, and also observed that no prior permission was obtained by police under CrPC section 197. It proves that the illegal investigation is attempted to harass the RTO officers and witnesses. A similar case involving the RTO department was dismissed by the High Court for lack of permission under section 197 [Narendra Kumar State (2006) 4 MPHT 145].
The RTO officers have already filed a complaint case under CrPC section 195 in the Magistrate’s Court in Nagpur. Therefore, all actions taken under FIR No. 72 of 2024 at APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai, are illegal and constitute contempt of court. The accused police officers and their superiors face imprisonment under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 [Re: M.P. Dwivedi, (1996) 4 SCC 152, New Delhi Municipal Council v. Prominent Hotels Limited, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11910].
