Court finds allegations of assault, intimidation and abuse against police constable “prima facie unbelievable”; mobile recording, WhatsApp chats and lack of independent evidence point to false implication
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has quashed a criminal case and chargesheet filed against a Mumbai jeweller, holding that the prosecution story was “prima facie unbelievable” and appeared to be a false and concocted case foisted on him.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav passed the order in a criminal application filed by Mukesh W. Siyal, who had sought quashing of FIR No. 76 of 2018 and the resulting chargesheet in C.C. No. 1012/PW/2018 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali. The case had been registered at Kasturba Marg Police Station under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, Siyal had misbehaved with a police constable, caught hold of his shirt collar, and threatened him in a public place on Dattapada Road, Borivali East, on February 4, 2018. The complainant, a police constable, claimed that the accused had acted aggressively after being stopped while riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
However, Siyal gave a completely different version. He alleged that the constable had retained his driving licence after checking his documents and demanded money for returning it. He claimed that the constable asked for Rs. 500 as penalty or Rs. 300 as bribe to settle the matter. He also alleged that when he tried to contact senior police officials, the constable became angry and later ensured that a false case was registered against him.
After examining the case record, the High Court found significant material supporting the applicant’s version. The Court noted that Siyal had recorded the incident on his mobile phone, and the recording allegedly showed that the constable had not returned his licence and had demanded money. The Court also referred to WhatsApp conversations and messages exchanged with police officers, which prima facie suggested that the complainant and his colleagues were involved in foisting a false case.
The Court was particularly unconvinced by the complainant’s statement. It observed that the allegation that the applicant would catch hold of the shirt collar of a police constable and threaten him in a public place appeared inherently improbable. The Court also noted that the complainant’s statement avoided the issue of the licence being retained, and that a police constable had no authority to confiscate a driving licence merely because a rider was not wearing a helmet.
The statements of three rickshaw pullers cited by the prosecution were also found unreliable. The Court said they were identical in nature and did not inspire confidence. It further observed that no independent witnesses from the public place had been examined, despite the incident allegedly occurring on a road at around 7 p.m.
Another important factor was the absence of CCTV footage from the police station. The applicant had alleged that he was detained at the police station from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m., handcuffed, and abused by policemen. The Court said that CCTV footage would have been crucial to verify what had happened, but the prosecution said it was not available. In the Court’s view, the absence of such evidence further weakened the prosecution case.
Concluding that the entire prosecution story was not only unbelievable but also false and concocted, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and chargesheet. The Court also directed that if the applicant’s driving licence had been confiscated, it should be returned forthwith on the basis of a certified or server copy of the order.
Bottom Line :
Quashing of FIR and chargesheet - Allegations under Sections 353, 504 and 506 IPC against applicant held prima facie unbelievable - Material including mobile phone recording and WhatsApp transcript indicated false implication by police constable - Absence of independent witnesses and non-availability of CCTV footage further weakened prosecution case - FIR and chargesheet quashed.
Statutory provision(s): Section 353 IPC, Section 504 IPC, Section 506 IPC
Mr. Mukesh W. Siyal v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982734
