Read Time: 05 minutes
In his complaint, Nainesh alleged that he had supplied air conditioners, water coolers, computers, LED TVs, printers, and other items to the Kasarvadavali police station in Thane, as well as to a specific police officer, but was not paid for them despite repeated requests
The Bombay High Court recently directed the Director General of Police to appoint a State CID officer, of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, to conduct an inquiry into a police officer who allegedly used an air conditioner, TV, printer, and water cooler without payment.
The division bench, comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale, remarked that it was difficult to comprehend how a police officer could use these items without making any payments.
“The allegations in the complaint are quite serious. First of all it is hard to understand as to how the police officers from a particular police station can take such expensive articles from a private party without following due procedure. Secondly, if the allegations are true, some serious action needs to be taken,” the order reads.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by Nainesh Panchal, who sought to quash an FIR lodged against him for cheating.
It was alleged that Nainesh had taken delivery of nine air conditioners and five water coolers, representing to the informant that he owned a shop and would sell the items on commission. However, after taking delivery, he allegedly failed to pay for the goods.
The matter was subsequently settled between Nainesh and the informant, with a consent affidavit filed in court agreeing to the quashing of the FIR.
In his petition, Nainesh included a complaint dated December 20, 2018, submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Thane City, containing specific allegations against certain police officers.
In his complaint, Nainesh alleged that he had supplied air conditioners, water coolers, computers, LED TVs, printers, and other items to the Kasarvadavali police station in Thane, as well as to a specific police officer, but was not paid for them despite repeated requests.
He stated that his complaint yielded no results, though his items were eventually returned. However, he suffered significant financial losses due to this delay, leading to his default on payments to the initial informant.
Considering his complaint, the bench directed an inquiry into the conduct of the police officer, to be completed within three months. The matter is scheduled for a further hearing on February 5, 2025.
Case title: Nainesh Panchal vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
