‘Misuse of authority’: Chandigarh cop in soup for undue haste in FIR
The sub-inspector lodged FIR in a car key theft case in August 2018 without concrete evidence to favour opposite party, finds Police Complaints Authority
The Police Complaints Authority, Chandigarh, has directed the Chandigarh SSP to take departmental action against sub-inspector (SI) Alam Chand for misusing his authority while lodging an FIR in an alleged case of car key theft.
The PCA found that SI Alam Chand acted in undue haste, failed to verify facts and favoured the opposite party, resulting in serious misconduct.
The matter had come to fore in August 2018, following a complaint by Tarminder Singh Chaudhary, a resident of Sector 22.
The complainant alleged that the FIR under Sections 379 (theft) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered to pressure him into withdrawing two previous FIRs (No. 456 dated December 1, 2017, and No. 180 dated May 9, 2018) that he had filed against his neighbours Kamal Sharma, Vinod Sharma and Munish Sharma.
FIR lodged even when car keys were returned: Complainant
According to Chaudhary, on August 6, 2018, around 4.02 pm, a car was parked outside his residence and its keys were mistakenly left inside the trunk.
His son and a friend noticed the keys and took them home, intending to return them. Later that evening, the car owner’s son called Chaudhary, demanding the keys.
Chaudhary stated that the keys were handed back in the presence of multiple witnesses, yet the police registered a case of theft against his son. The FIR was allegedly lodged at the behest of influential individuals, including a senior official from municipal corporation, to settle old scores, he alleged.
The complainant further alleged that the SI never visited the scene, failed to collect CCTV footage and registered the case without conducting any proper investigation. He also claimed that Kamal Sharma and his associates influenced the police officers and pressured him to withdraw previous complaints.
SI Alam Chand, in his defence, stated that on August 6, 2018, Kamal Sharma visited the Burail Police Post and filed a complaint regarding the theft of his car keys. A DDR was entered and an initial inquiry was conducted.
The next day, on August 7, 2018, CCTV footage was allegedly reviewed, and according to SI Chand, it confirmed the allegations of theft. Based on this, FIR No. 284 was registered under Sections 379 and 34 IPC. However, the accused were not arrested and later secured anticipatory bail.
SI Alam Chand further claimed that the keys were never returned, as alleged by the complainant, and labelled Chaudhary as a habitual complainant against police officials.
Cop committed serious misconduct: PCA
After reviewing the complaint, police records and testimonies, the PCA ruled that SI Alam Chand had committed serious misconduct.
The authority noted that for a theft case to be valid under Section 379 IPC, there must be dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain or loss. In this case, the complainant’s son returned the keys, indicating no wrongful intent.
The PCA found it unusual that the FIR was registered in less than 24 hours, despite the lack of concrete evidence and the failure to verify facts with witnesses. “There appears unusual hurry on the part of the police to register a case of petty theft in the late hours on the next day,” the authority observed.
The police failed to preserve CCTV footage from Burail Police Post, which could have confirmed the sequence of events. The police later claimed that CCTV footage was only stored for nine days, and the request for preservation was made too late.
The PCA observed that the complainant had previously filed two FIRs against Kamal Sharma, and there was a strong possibility that the FIR against his son was an act of retaliation, which police failed to investigate.
“SI Alam Chand seriously abused his authority by apparently overlooking certain facts and lodging the FIR against the son of the complainant and his friend (in August 2018). The result is that the two boys are facing trial till date. This amounts to serious misconduct on the part of SI Alam Chand,” remarked the PCA.
What the PCA found
Dishonest intention is a crucial element in proving theft under Section 378 IPC. Police failed to investigate whether the accused intended to wrongfully gain from taking the keys.
Hasty FIR registration: The FIR was registered within 24 hours, despite the police’s initial assurance that no case would be filed. PCA found this unusual urgency suspicious, suggesting that the FIR may have been lodged under external pressure.
Failure to preserve crucial CCTV footage: PCA found it highly problematic that the CCTV footage from Burail Police Post, where the FIR was lodged, was not preserved.
Inconsistencies in probe: PCA pointed out that the investigating officer, SI Alam Chand, did not visit the crime scene to verify facts. The complainant alleged that the keys were returned in front of witnesses, but the police did not record statements from those witnesses.
The PCA serves as an independent body to address the complaints and allegations of “serious misconduct” and abuse of power against police personnel.
Recommended Topics