Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Atul Patankar

FIR against 12 cops for detaining, beating man

Recommended Posts

Atul Patankar

As reported by Utkarsh Anand at www.expressindia.com on 30 May 2009


New Delhi The Delhi Police’s Crime Branch has lodged an FIR against 12 personnel, including the station house officer, of the Mukherjee Nagar police station, under charges of custodial torture, abduction and fudging of records.



This comes a year after the area magistrate concerned ordered Delhi Police Commissioner Y S Dadwal to register an FIR against the police personnel and initiate investigations into a complaint filed by one Neeraj Mishra, an IAS aspirant, living in the Mukherjee Nagar locality.

An FIR was lodged on May 22 against SHO Indira Sharma and others after the magistrate directed so, in the wake of them failing to get any reprieve from the sessions court against a lower court’s order that had come in April last year. Mishra had approached the court seeking an FIR against the cops, alleging they on April 10 last year beat him up inside the police station after detaining him illegally.


As per the complaint filed by him, it started due to his friendship with the daughter of one Vinod Sharma. Sharma did not approve of their friendship and the two had allegedly offered him a drink laced with unknown substances when he went to their house in August 2007.


When he subsequently went to the police to lodge a complaint, several policemen tried to pressurise him into withdrawing his complaint. Mishra alleged that he was repeatedly called to the Mukherjee Nagar police station, where he was threatened, bashed up, and had Rs 12,000 snatched from him in one incident. He, however, filed other complaints regarding these events as well.


The complaint also states that on April 10 last year, Mishra was arrested in a false case and beaten up in barrack no. 1 of the police station on the direction of SHO Sharma. Inspector Surender Nath and SI Prem Singh had put their revolvers on his forehead and asked him to withdraw a complaint against the SHO and others.


Mishra was then taken to Jagjeevan Ram Hospital but instead of preparing a true report, the doctors there abstained from making his MLC and did not mention anything about his injuries, the complaint states.

Mishra then decided to approach the court and represented himself during the hearing when Metropolitan Magistrate Vinay Singhal passed the order against the police personnel. He adduced all the documents, including those procured through RTI, to establish the prima facie case against the officials.


“In view of the serious allegations of illegal arrest/detention coupled with the custodial torture upon the complainant at the instance of SHO Indira Sharma and other named persons on April 10, 2008, indeed it is necessary and expedient that an FIR be registered against SHO Sharma as well as others,” MM Singhal had said in his order on April 21 last year.


The police commissioner was asked to get an FIR lodged at a police station other then Mukherjee Nagar and to have the matter investigated by an officer not below the rank of ACP. SHO Sharma and others had then moved a sessions court against this order but the judge asked them to face prosecution by a order in January this year.

Two other complaints filed by Mishra for registration of FIRs are pending at the Rohini courts.


Source: FIR against 12 cops for detaining, beating man - Express India

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shree Vathsan
      By Shree Vathsan
      I have been falsely implicated in a case by police for removing illegal banners. They  have remanded me under Sec506(II) Attempt to murder on complaint from ruling party men. Though the FIR is available online I want copy of  other documents like complaint letter, confession letter in which they have forcibly made me sign. I also want the CCTV footage of the police station at that particular date and time. 
      I have already filed RTI in this regard and have had the information denied under Article 8 1 (h) saying the case is  under investigation. Is this correct? Will First appeal be of any help?
    • karira
      By karira
      Police not bound to register FIR: SC Pioneer News Service | New Delhi

      The Supreme Court in a recent judgment has said that the police was not bound to register a First Information Report if it thinks appropriate to first conduct a preliminary inquiry.


      Though the intention of the court was to screen out frivolous complaints borne out of vested interests, the recent decision seeks to upturn the law previously laid down by the apex court by which the police had to oblige every complaint. 


      The Bench of Justices SB Sinha and HS Bedi said, "Although the officer in-charge of a police station is legally bound to register an FIR... the same by itself however does not take away the right of the competent officer to make a preliminary inquiry, in a given case, in order to find out as to whether the FIR sought to be lodged had any substance or not." 


      The court was referring to the facts of a case where one Rajinder Singh Katoch had approached the Supreme Court challenging the order by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana refusing to direct the police to lodge an FIR. 


      Katoch had complained to the Chandigarh Police seeking registration of a criminal case against his brother for wrongfully restraining his entry into a joint property left by their father. He stayed in the house in 2001 but on his return after a brief visit to Delhi a year later he was refused entry and to take possession of his belongings. 


      The Bench held, "the SP himself has, pursuant to the directions issued by the HC, investigated into the matter and visited the spot in order to find out the truth ... It was found that the complaint was false and had been filed with an ulterior motive." 


      The Pioneer > Home


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy