Take action against cop for probe without FIR

The Bombay High Court has asked Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to take appropriate action against one of its police inspectors, who investigated an alleged graft case against a corporator from the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) from Mahim without registering an offence against her.

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai has asked Additional Commissioner of Police to look into the matter and fix responsibility and take appropriate action against police inspector, Chandramohan Dubey. In 2014, the cop had arrested corporator, Shraddha Patil and her husband Rajesh, on a complaint filed by a cleaning contractor.

The court, while disposing of an appeal filed by the state government, challenging the acquittal order of the accused, found the complaint to have been received by Dubey, 10-days before filing, of the FIR. Even, investigations were done by the cop before arresting the accused in a trap, while accepting a graft of Rs 15,000, without registering an offence, which is mandatory as per law.

The court said "Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted to combat corruption which is a bane of the society. These offences can have serious impact on the society and are required to be investigated efficiently and effectively. In the instant case, for the reasons best know to Dubey, he had registered the FIR 10 days after lodging of complaint and that too after commencing the investigations. The records reveal that Dubey has conducted the investigation in a most casual manner. This is certainly a very unhealthy situation which needs to be curbed."

As per the complainant filed by the NGO which was awarded a BMC tender for cleaning the Nayanagar slums in Mahim, alleged that for the past many months, Shraddha, and Rajesh have been threatening to get the NGO's tender cancelled on the grounds of unsatisfactory work.

It was also alleged that they demanded a monthly bribe from the Ngo to not disturb the working or get the NGO blacklisted. 

However, the trial has acquitted the accused citing discrepancies in the investigations. It also took into consideration that Dubey testified in court, that Patil's had not demanded bribe from the complainant.