The Judicial magistrate First Class Vijaylaxmi R Shivolkar, passed a landmark order explaining how the police are working like caged parrots of the politicians.
The JMFC, hearing the infamous Kashinath Shetye LAQ theft case, severely criticised the police department for its functioning.
While ordering cases to be filed against PI Vishwesh Karpe for registering false cases against Shetye, he said, that posting the LAQ on Facebook page itself does not constitute an offence of theft.
What is more important here is that the court explained how the police are working without using their brains.
The court explained that the Curchorem MLA Nilesh Cabral had lodged the complaint with the Speaker Dr Pramod Sawant about the complainant having committed a breach of privilege and secrecy.
But, it said, was converted to theft and that too without even recording the statement of the complainant.
The court also said as the matter was pertaining to the breach of privilege it had to be dealt with differently under the provisions of law and not by the police department.
“Speaker of Goa Legislative Assembly Dr Pramod Sawant sent a note dated 14/07/2017 to DGP police, who sent a note to SP Crime branch Mr Kartik Kashap with remark for immediate action and report] which was in turn was referred to SP North, who put a remark on the said note addressing PI Vishwesh Karpe to register FIR and to submit report within 24 hrs,” the court said.
Further, the order said, the PI without even recording the statement of Nilesh Cabral, First informant and the complainant, the aggrieved person, went ahead to register a FIR of theft in the house under section 380 of IPC against the complainant.
“The said complaint filed by Nilesh Cabral pertains to breach of privilege and secrecy therefore same ought to have been investigated/inquired into under special statute, but instead of doing that the same was forwarded to DGP by the Chief Secretary Dharmendra Sharma, after it was received by him from Dr Pramod Sawant,” it states adding, “Therefore, strictly speaking, the proposed accused Cabral and Chief Secretary have not committed any of the offences as alleged in the present complaint”.
But, it further said, no doubt, the action of Shri Dharmendra Sharma, the Chief Secretary of Goa of forwarding the said complaint to DGP of Goa is objectionable and uncalled for as there was no need for him to forward the same to DGP as the complaint filed by Nilesh Cabral was pertaining to issue of breach of privilege and secrecy.
“The said complaint of Nilesh Cabral therefore was required to be dealt with differently under the provisions of altogether a different statute and there was no reason to forward the said complaint to DGP Goa Shri Dharmendra Sharma,” it observed.
Further, the court says, the complaint and the deposition of witnesses further reveals, DGP Goa acting in his official capacity referred the said complaint to SP North Goa that is Kartik Kashap, , who in turn marked the said complaint to PI Vishwesh Karpe with a direction to register the FIR and submit report within 24 hrs.
“Now it is a different issue that both officers since holding the highest position in the Department of Police ought to have guided the officer subordinate to them in a proper prospective, however, it seems that this exercise was not done and they merely shouldered the responsibility to deal with the complaint on PI Karpe,” the order observes.
It continues, “Till this stage, though the actions of all the high-level officers was objectionable, but still it has not caused great harm and hardship to the complainant, however, the act committed by the proposed accused PI Vishwesh Karpe undisputedly has caused great damage to the reputation of the complainant”.
CAGED PARROTS
“It pains to see the manner in which the police machinery in the State functions. This is the classic example which shows how blindly the order of the political leaders and of higher officers of the department are blindly followed by the subordinate officers so as to cause hardship to the common man who are at the mercy to the so-called officers and political leaders,” the order says.
The Court further pointed out that Shetye is a junior engineer by profession and so also a social activist.
“Being so a man like him is targeted in the manner discussed herein above by the police officers in charge of the police stations at the behest of the superior officer and persons who are in power then one can imagine the situation of common man, to what extent a police officer can go to falsely implicate any person in an offence virtually not committed by him if the so-called police machinery and persons in power intent to target a person for whatever cause and reasons,” the order reads.
The court observed that PI Karpe was under an obligation to hold a preliminary inquiry in the matter, but he has on the face of record, in utter dereliction of his duty, acted in an unfair manner and blindly followed the order of his superior.
“Not only that he has misread the section of Sections of IPC and in his own wisdom lodged the complaint of theft against the complainant when there was no lawful ground for him to file such proceedings or charge against the complainant,” it observed.
“The complaint therefore prima facie shows that the prospective accused (PI Karpe) has committed an offence punishable under Section 211 of IPC. Undoubtedly, the above act of prospective accused PI Karpe has damaged the image and reputation of the complainant. Therefore the complainant has prima facie made out the case under Section 499 and 500 of IPC against accused PI Karpe,” the order adds.
Further the order says, “The proceedings are dropped as against accused Nilesh Cabral, Dharmendra Sharma and Dr Pramod Sawant and issue process against accused no 4 PI Karpe for committing offence punishable under Sections 211, 499 and 500 of IPC”.
Strictures against PI Karpe
The court felt that Karpe undisputedly has caused great damage to the reputation of the complainant.
“PI Karpe acting as a puppet at the hands of his higher officer blindly proceeded to lodge an FIR against the complainant for an alleged offence of committing theft by the complainant in the assembly house without verifying the contents of the complaint and without verifying into the fact whether the said complaint actually required an action to be taken under the Indian Penal Code so also without even understanding the requirement fulfilling the ingredients of theft,” it said.
Not only that, the court said, Karpe without any locus standi assumed within himself the authority of acting as the complainant in the said case which act of his is highly objectionable and is required to viewed seriously.
“PI Karpe is the Station Officer having power to maintain law and order within his jurisdiction. However, has acted as a complainant and went ahead to lodge the complaint of theft against the complainant. It is a matter of serious concern that the officer in the rank of in charge of a police station does not know the basic ingredients of the definition of ‘theft’.”
“The PI without even recording the statement of Cabral the first informant and the complainant, the aggrieved person, went ahead to register a FIR of theft in the House under Section 380 of IPC, against the complainant,” the order states.
No theft or Breach
The said LAQ pertains to the information of the complainant himself and since it was an open document forwarded to the department of the complainant where he was working and since it had changed several hands, it therefore cannot be said to be moveable property being intentionally and dishonestly being taken from any person, including Nilesh Cabral being the informant and aggrieved person, the court observed.
“Even going one step ahead presuming for a moment that it is a complainant who posted those question on the Facebook as alleged in the complaint dated 13/07/2017 addressed to the Speaker by Cabral, however said act of posting the LAQ on Facebook page itself does not constitute an offence of theft neither it was the case of the complainant that the complainant had committed theft, nor the SP North Mr Kartik Kashyap ordered the PI to lodge the FIR of theft by the complainant.”
“It is Mr Karpe’s strange understanding of definition of theft which constituted the said act into a theft and accordingly he without any authority stepped into the shoes of the complainant and became the complainant himself as well, also registered the FIR against the present complainant, which acts of his arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, objectionable and totally contrary to the law,” court said.
The court further said that PI Karpe has failed in his duty and obligation and without application of mind to the factual situation and also in order to please his higher officer, caused loss, damage to the image and to the reputation of the complainant.
