Petitioner had filed two complaints with the Samta Nagar police station over theft, claimed probe went nowhere. Frustrated by the inaction, the woman’s mother moved the HC, further alleging that the PSI investigating the theft case sent a friend request to her daughter on Facebook instead of conducting a proper inquiry
Bombay High Court gave its directions on January 6. Representation pic
The Bombay High Court on Monday (January 6) directed the Mumbai police to examine the conduct of a police sub-inspector (PSI) attached to the Samta Nagar police station in Kandivli West, who allegedly sent a Facebook friend request to a woman petitioner whose theft complaint he was investigating.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to the woman, she had filed two complaints with the Samta Nagar police station in August, 2024, for theft, but no progress was made in the investigation. She said that her mother had also approached Mumbai Police Commissioner Vivek Phansalkar with a complaint, but no response was received.
Frustrated by the inaction, the woman’s mother moved the HC, further alleging that the PSI investigating the theft case sent a friend request to her daughter on Facebook instead of conducting a proper inquiry. On Monday, the HC directed the Zonal Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to take appropriate action against the PSI.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela K Gokhale remarked, “We fail to understand how an officer investigating the case of the petitioner, a lady, can send such a friend request to her or, in fact, to anybody whose case he is investigating.”
The court’s order stated, “Considering the manner in which the case is being handled, we direct the DCP of the zone to look concerned into the petitioner’s complaint and take appropriate steps. The DCP must also examine the conduct of the PSI who sent a friend request to the petitioner and take necessary action.”
Advocate Vijay Kantharia, representing the complainant, argued that the police acted “high-handedly, unreasonably, and illegally” by deliberately failing to register an FIR for the theft of the petitioner’s movable properties. He added, “The petitioner had no choice but to approach the Bombay HC after being denied justice.”
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
