|MISUSE OF MCOCA - COMPLAINT TO CBI|
1st written complaint letter to Mr. Ashwani Kumar (Director, Central Bureau of Investigation)
Sub: Complaint against various
Police Officers for misusing their powers in implicating the complainant
in a false criminal complain under the stringent provisions of the MCOC
Act for personal benefits and gain because of which the complainant had to
spend 65 days in Jail.
Through the present letter I would
like to request you to register and investigate my complaint against The
former Commissioner of Police Mumbai
Shri A. N. Roy, the former Joint Commissioner of Police, (Crime),
Mumbai Mrs. Meera Borwankar, the former Asst. Commissioner of Police (ACP),
Santacruz, Mumbai Shri Pramod Rane, Police Inspector Shri Vinayak Sawade
(formerly with DCB, CID, Unit No.VIII, Mumbai), A.P.I. Shri Sagar
Shivalkar formerly with DCB, CID, Unit No.VIII, Mumbai
and S.I. Shri Ninad Sawant, formerly with DCB, CID, Unit No.VIII,
Mumbai for misusing their powers in implicating
me in a false criminal
case under the stringent provisions of the MCOC Act for personal benefits
and gain and the benefits and gain of local politicians and builders who
are in close proximity to the said Police Officers.
The details of the matter are spelt
out in the following paragraphs.
The Complainant is a businessman and was the Director of a Company
known as M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which was
involved in the business of carrying out constructions and redevelopment
under the SRA Scheme and under the SRA Act Mumbai. The Complainant is also
the Founder Director of a sports NGO formed in 1993 namely Indian Squash
Professionals (ISP) whose main objective is to promote and popularize the
sport of Squash in India. ISP has achieved the distinction of organizing
92 tournaments, has adopted five players, set up its own website www.ispsquash.com
and publishes the country’s leading squash magazine “PROSQUASH”,
which is distributed free of cost to 3000 players.
Also published magazine for its 75th tournament, which
has accolades and goodwill messages from prominent Politicians /
Businessmen’s / Sportsmen & Senior government officials. Hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit “A” (Colly) are the copies
of newsletter & magazine published by ISP.
3 The Complainant states that sometime on or about 27.1.2006 a Deed of Conveyance was executed between M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Complainant is a Director and M/s. D.V. Industries, a partnership firm duly registered under the Partnership Act, whereby M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. acquired all right, title and interest in the property bearing Survey No.93, Hissa No.1 and bearing CTS No. 234, 235, 235/1, 2205, 236 and 236/1, 25 admeasuring 8160.40 sq. mtrs. situated at Village Mulgaon, Tal. Borivali in the Bombay Suburban District and in the registration sub-district of Bandra, Mumbai.
The Complainant states that after the execution of the Deed of
Conveyance dated 27.1.2006 the complainant started facing harassment at
the instance of one Mr. Brijlal Tiwari
who desired to stall the redevelopment work of the said Property
under the SRA Scheme and SRA Act. The Complainant states that Mr. Brijlal
Tiwari was acting at the
instance and instigation of
Santosh Mithgaonkar of Santosh Enterprises, having their office at 77,
Makhanwallas, Shivaji Park, Dadar (west), Mumbai, who is very close to
many politicians and were also interested in developing the aforesaid
property through him.
The Complainant was apprehending mischief at the hands of M/s
Santosh Enterprises and Mr.
Brijlal Tiwari and therefore M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions
Pvt. Ltd lodged various police complaints from 24th March
2006 to 2nd May 2006, Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit
“B”(Colly) are the copies of various letters addressed to the
Police Authorities. The Complainant states that for reasons best known to
the Police Officers, the Police Officers
did not give any positive response to the various letters addressed
and therefore M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. were
constrained to approach the Hon’ble City Civil Court and obtain certain
relief’s in favour of M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions Pvt. Ltd
and against Mr Brijlal Tiwari .. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit
“C” (Colly) are the copies of orders dated 13.04.2006 and
from the Hon’ble City Civil Court against
Mr. Brijlal Tiwari who subsequently falsely
lodged a police complaint against the Complainant and got him arrested under MCOCA in C.R. No.53 of 2006 on 5th
6 The Complainant states that Mr. Brijlal Tiwari in collusion and conspiracy with M/s Santosh Enterprises who were eager and desperate to redevelop the same property through Mr. Brijlal Tiwari with the political support of the local politician who happens to be a Minister in the present State Government misused the Police Machinery and more particularly the office of the police officer named in this complaint and lodged a false police complaint against the Complainant and other Directors of M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and got them arrested under the MCOC Act sometime on or about 5.7.2006 in C.R. No.53 of 2006. The Complainant states that the Police and more particularly the police officers named in the present complaint did not even remotely consider the fact that the Complainant had no past criminal record and not even a single N.C was recorded against the Complainant. It is interesting to note that as per the prosecution case as well as Mr. Brijlal Tiwari on whose complaint the Complainant was arrested, the Complainant had threatened Mr. Brijlal Tiwari in person, in the office premises of M/s. Monarch Builders in 2nd week of June 2006, but during the period when the alleged threat was supposed to have been given by the Complainant to Mr Brijlal Tiwari, the Complainant was not available in India and he was out of India for the period 28.5.2006 till 29.6.2006 and this fact is clearly disclosed from the Passport of the Complainant which is annexed and marked as Exhibit “D” hereto. The Complainant states that during the time of his arrest, detention and interrogation, the Complainant repeatedly narrated the above actual factual position to the Police Officers mentioned in the present complaint who were investigating the Complainant , but for reasons best known to the said Police Officers, the said Police Officers willingly chose to turn a blind eye to this crucial piece of evidence and continued to torment and prosecute the Complainant , but the said Police Officers were unable to camouflage this vital and crucial piece of evidence before the Hon’ble Special Court of Sessions under MCOC Act in Bail Application No 9 of 2006 of the Complainant and this fact got reflected in order dated 07.09.2006 in the said bail application wherein the Complainant was granted bail after approximately 65 days in custody. The relevant averments of order dated 07.09.2006 are as under:
“It is also pointed out by Shri Ponda that it is claimed in the remand applications that the first informant (Mr. Brijlal Tiwari ) speaks of having been threatened, inter-alia, by the applicant No 1 (Complainant) in the second week of June 2006, which is obviously false, as the applicant No 1 (Complainant) was out of India from 28.05.2006 till 29.06.2006; and that this can be verified from the passport of the applicant No 1 (Complainant), which is now in the custody of the investigation agency. The Investigating Officer, when questioned, agreed that this is so, but claimed that the first informant (Mr. Brijlal Tiwari ) has subsequently clarified that the date “Second week of June” as mentioned by him was wrong; and that actually, the incident had taken place in the second week of April” Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “E” is the copy of the order dated 7.9.2006 bail application No 9 of 2006 (para 16).
6 The Complainant states that the Complainant was arrested under MCOCA on 05.07.2006 on the basis of FIR bearing No 53 of 2006 registered on the compliant by Mr. Brijlal Tiwari and that in the entire statement of Mr. Brijlal Tiwari other than the allegation of Complainant having allegedly threatened him in person, in the second week of June of 2006 ( when the Complainant was not in India ) there is no other allegation in the entire statement of Mr. Brijlal Tiwari against the Complainant on the basis of which the Complainant was arrested, booked and prosecuted under MCOC Act. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “F” is the copy of the statement of Mr. Brijlal Tiwari The Complainant states that the Hon’ble Special Court of Sessions made the following observations which add weight to the grievance of the Complainant that the Complainant was implicated in a false case by some interested parties, the observation at para 23 of the order dated 7.09.2006 in Bail Application No 09 of 2006 read as under:
“ In my opinion, even at this stage,
the following factual aspects of the matter, which cannot be disputed, are
required to be taken into consideration.
The matter was reported to the police by the first informant very
Though the fear of Ravi Pujari is given as the reason for not
reporting the matter to the police earlier, it is not that a complaint was
not made to the police at all. In the letter dated 30.03.2006, addressed
to the Senior Inspector of Police, MIDC Police Station, and signed by the
first informant and others,
there is no reference to the threats given by Ravi Pujari.
None of the residents of the locality had lodged report against the
applicants (including Complainant ) or any of them till the first
informant lodged the report
Applicant Nos 1 ( Complainant) and 2 are owners of the land in
question and are interested in redevelopment project under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme. The first informant (Mr. Brijlal Tiwari
) is also interested in the redevelopment and wants to carry it out
by getting a different developer appointed.
There is no material to suggest that if the redevelopment is
allowed to be handled by the “Siddhivinayak Sangh”, the occupants/slum
dwellers would benefit more than that are promised by “Jai Ambe
Society” through Vertex. There is nothing to show that the occupants /
slum dwellers are being forced to join a disadvantageous project by giving
threats to them.
The statements of the first informant as regards the alleged
threats given to him in the second week of June, inter-alia, by the
applicant No1 (Complainant), is incorrect, at least to that extent.
The Complainant states that thereafter the police authorities filed a Criminal Application No.3773 of 2006 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court challenging the Order dated 7.9.2006 but the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was pleased to reject the Criminal Application No.3773 of 2006 on 9.1.2007 upholding the order dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Special Court of Sessions hearing matter under the MCOCA. The copy of the said order is already annexed as Exhibit “E” Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “G” is the copy of the order dated 9.01.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
6 The Complainant states that during the period when the Complainant was charged booked and arrested till the Complainant got bail on 7.9.2006, Mr Brijlal Tiwari in the intervening period moved an application before the authorities pertaining to SRA Scheme and SRA Act seeking issuance of an acquisition certificate in favour of M/s. Shri Siddivinayak Juna Aashram SRA CHS (proposed) of which the Mr Brijlal Tiwari is the alleged Chief Promoter. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “H” is the copy of the Application dated 21.7.2006 moved by Mr Brijlal Tiwari. The Complainant states that the aforesaid factual position clearly shows that the intention of the Mr Brijlal Tiwari in getting the Complainant involved in a criminal case under the stringent provisions of MCOCA was simply to deprive M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. from proceeding further with the redevelopment work of the said property under the SRA Scheme and SRA Act through the present Complainant.
7 The Complainant states that during the Complainant’s custody with the police i.e. from the date of his arrest on 5.7.2006 till the Complainant obtained bail on 7.9.2006, the Complainant was all along put under pressure by the police directing the Complainant to withdraw himself and M/s. Vertex Warehousing and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. so that the said property could be developed under the SRA Scheme and SRA Act by the Mr Brijlal Tiwari with the help of M/s. Santosh Enterprises and other local politicians. The Complainant states that the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant because the Complainant is fully convinced that Police Officers mentioned in the complaint had falsely implicated the Complainant in C.R. No.53 of 2006 even though there was no prima facie case against the Complainant.
8 The Complainant states that the arrest of the Complainant was published in various leading news papers and was also televised in leading television channels. The Complainant was portrayed as a close associate of wanted mafia don and extortionist Ravi Pujari. The Complainant states that one month before the Complainant came to be arrested, the henchmen of Ravi Pujari had fired some gun shots at the office of the renowned Hindi Film Director Mr. Mahesh Bhatt and the police were unable to arrest the culprits who had carried out this attack and therefore were under pressure from the media and the public at large on their inaction to arrest the above mentioned criminals. The Complainant was made a scapegoat and it was made known to the media and public at large that some break through was being made in the shooting incident at the office of Mr. Mahesh Bhatt after the arrest of the complainant.
9 The Complainant states that due to the unwarranted and uncalled for actions and inactions of police officers named in the present complaint and misuse of their official powers the Complainant was treated like an outcast by society and lost all his reputation which he had painstakingly built through sheer hard work and grit over the last many years. The Complainant filed a complaint dated 20.2.2007 before the State Human Rights Commission, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, pointing out the facts narrated in the foregoing paragraphs of the present Complaint. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, vide its order dated 20.3.2007 was pleased to dispose off the matter of the complainant because the Commission was of the opinion that the case of the Complainant was not maintainable as per the provisions of the regulations framed U/s. 10 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 as it related to civil dispute such as property rights, contractual obligations. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “I” is the copy of the order dated 20th March, 2007 passed by Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. The Complainant states that the stand taken by the Complainant before the State Human Right Commission was that even if there were disputes and differences between the Complainant and Mr. Brijlal Tiwari they were of civil nature and the Police by invoking the stringent provisions of MCOC Act, against the complainant had violated the human rights as well as fundamental rights of the Complainant. The Complainant states that the Complainant since the time of his release from custody has been running from pillar to post to prove his bonafides and innocence and the efforts of the Complainant did not go in vain since the Special Court (under MCOC Act) for Greater Bombay at Mumbai in MCOC Special Case No. 11 of 2007 acquitted the Complainant along with other accused vide its order dated 5.3.2009. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “J” is the copy of the order dated 5.3.2009 passed in MCOC Special Case No. 11 of 2007. The Complainant states that the acquittal of the Complainant by the Special Court (under MCOC Act) in C.R.No. 53 of 2006 clearly shows that Police Officers mentioned in the present complaint without application of mind for reasons best known to them have implicated the Complainant in a false case by misusing their powers for personal gain or the gains of people in close proximity to the said officers.
10. The Complainant states that he has not a single N.C or any case registered against him since he was born and that he is promoting the game of squash since 1993 through its NGO Indian Squash Professionals. It was the complainant who always have been first to approach the police through various complaints, approached city civil court to take orders against Brijlal Tiwari to put the board on site & to do the survey till 2nd May 2006 & from 28th May to 29th June 2006 the complainant was out of country and suddenly on 5th July 2006 he is being arrested in MCOCA which is an act meant for criminals having 2 serious cases against them. This is a clear case of misuse of MCOCA as an honest tax payer has been falsely implicated for personal gain by senior IPS officers mentioned & thereby human right of the complainant. Now therefore the Complainant is approaching the Central Bereau of Investigation seeking investigation into the reasons why the Complainant was made an accused in C.R. No.53 of 2006 and Criminal proceedings initiated against the Complainant when there was no prima facie case against the Complainant. The Complainant desires that a detailed enquiry investigation be conducted against Mr Brijlal Tiwari & all the police officers involved in the sanctioning of prosecution under MCOC Act against the Complainant and more particularly the police officers named in the present complaint
|Letters were sent to the below mentioned Government Departments, but there was no action taken and all have forwarded the letter to some other department or must have thrown in the dustbin.|
The Commissioner of
Date: 11th November, 2011.
the instructions from my clients (1) Mr. Mahendra Jagdish Agarwal r/o.
Andheri (East), Mumbai 59, (2) Mr. Madhukar Ramchandra Musle, Andheri
(East), Mumbai – 93, (3) Mr. Ajay Damodar Sharma r/o. Room no. 3 &
4, Vikrama Pasi Chawl, Mulgaon
Dongri, M.I.D.C., Andheri (East), Mumbai 93, (4) Mr. Ramdas Manohar
Masurkar r/o. Shivpujan Mistri Chawl, Mulgaon Dongri, M.I.D.C., Andheri
(East), Mumbai 93, (5) Mr. Surendra Khurdan Pasi, r/o Khurdan Pasi chawl,
Mulgaon Dongri, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai 93, (6) Mr. Vishnu Krishna Dutt
r/o of Andheri (East), Mumbai, I
have to state as follows:
On the Complainant of Mr. Brijlal Tiwari, M.I.D.C. police
registered F.I.R. NO. 293 OF 2006 on 5/7/2006 against my clients, under
Section 387, 120 (b), 506 (ii), of I.P.C. and under M.C.O.C. Act and the
same was immediately taken over by D.C.B., C.I.D. vide C.R. No.53 of 2006
and my clients were arrested on the same day.
My clients thereafter filed Bail Application before the
My clients state that thereafter the State of
My clients state that thereafter the said C.R.
was numbered as M.C.O.C. SPL. Case No. 11 of 2007. My clients
further state that after framing the charge and Recording of Evidence of
the Witnesses His Honour Spl. Judge Shri M.P. Kukkday was pleased to
acquit my clients vide his detailed order passed on 5th March,
My clients state that thereafter my client Mr. Mahendra Jagdish
Agarwal filed a Criminal Writ Petition in the Hon’ble High Court being
Criminal Writ Petition no. 3187 of 2009 against 6 officers of Police for
falsely implicating my client in M.C.O.C. Case and putting him behind bars
for a period of 65 days.
My clients state that after filing of the Criminal Writ Petition,
the said Police Officers through the State of
My clients state that the Appeal filed by the State of
My clients state that the Police Officers of Crime Branch Unit no.
X, ACP Andheri Division, DCP having office at M.I.D.C., Andheri, D.N.
Nagar, Andheri, M.I.D.C. Police Station Andheri, Juhu Police Station,
Mumbai, Amboli Police Station, Mumbai and Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai,
being aggrieved by the Criminal Writ Petition filed by my client against
them personally have started harassing my clients in the following manner:
On 16/7/2010 and 18/7/2010 all my clients were called at the Crime
Branch Unit no. X, and their statements were recorded by the concerned
On 19/7/2010 all my clients were called at ACP, Andheri Division,
Mumbai and oral enquiry was made.
On 20/7/2010 all my clients were called at the newly formed Ravi
Pujari Squad at the Oshiwara Police Station and oral enquiry was made.
On 21/7/2010 all my clients were called at DCP Office at MIDC,
Andheri, Mumbai and oral enquiry was made. My clients name, address,
telephone no. and bank details were recorded by their concerned in charge
Again on 21/7/2010 all my clients were called at Detection
Department of Andheri Police and oral enquiry was made.
On 17/3/2011 all my clients were called at Crime Branch Unit no. X
and their statements were recorded by the concerned Police Officer.
On 8/4/2011 again all my clients were called at the D.N. Nagar
Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai and their statements were recorded by the
concerned Senior Inspector of Police.
On 29/6/2011, all my clients were called at the M.I.D.C. Police
Station, Andheri, Mumbai and their statements were recorded by the
Sub-inspector of Police.
On 29/10/2011, again my clients Mr. Mahendra Jagdish Agarwal &
Mr Ajay Sharma were called at the Juhu Police Station, Mumbai by API More
and API Salvi, they called upon my clients to furnish copy of their
photographs and they further called upon them to furnish the copy of the
Bail Order passed in M.C.O.C. case
along with the Acquittal order passed by the Hon’ble Sessions Court,
Mumbai and the Writ Petition filed by my client in the Hon’ble High
Court. Further they were
orally informed to report to the police station every 15 days.
On 3/11/2011, again my clients Mr. Mahendra Jagdish Agarwal &
Mr Ajay Sharma were called at the Amboli Police Station, Mumbai by PI
Sawant and he called upon my clients to furnish copy of their photographs
and he further called upon them to furnish the copy of the Bail Order
passed in M.C.O.C. case along with the Acquittal order passed by the
Hon’ble Sessions Court, Mumbai and the Writ Petition filed by my client
in the Hon’ble High Court. Further
they were orally informed to report to the police station every 15 days.
On 7/11/ 2011 my clients Mr. Madhukar Musle and Mr. Ramdas Masurkar
were called upon API Navnath Choudhari of Santacruz Police Station and he
called upon my clients to furnish copy of their photographs and he further
called upon them to furnish the copy of the Bail Order passed in M.C.O.C.
case along with the Acquittal order passed by the Hon’ble
Sessions Court, Mumbai and the Writ Petition filed by my client in the
Hon’ble High Court. Further
they were orally informed to report to the police station every 15 days.
My clients further harassment are
mentioned as below:
(i) My clients state that
they are business man and your officers being seated in their office any
time calls my clients to their concerned office along with documents and
if my client refuses to visit their office and/or asks for written summons
your officer threatens my client that they shall send their personnel’s
to pick my clients from wherever they are and further threaten that they
have the power to detain my clients for 24 hours. After receipts of such
threats my clients have to leave all their important work be it meetings
or any visits pre-decided and attend the concerned Police Stations/Units
(ii) My clients being in the
business/Jobs are repeatedly called by your officers to their office
thereby exposing my clients to the criminals who are arrested
or being brought to the concerned police station and this might
lead to calls of extortion, threats etc. to my clients by those criminals
and/or endangering the life of my
clients at their hands.
(iii) My clients state that the whole
intention of your officers is to harass my clients
by repeatedly calling them to various Police Stations/Units etc and
to mark their presence every 15days which is impossible as they all are
either in business or jobs.
My clients state that since the appeal filed by the State of
Maharashtra and Criminal Writ Petition filed by my client Mr Mahendra
Agarwal is tagged in High Court and the same is pending for hearing, my
client apprehend that in view of Criminal Writ Petition pending against 6
police officers they are telling their sub-ordinates and are putting
pressure to withdraw the said Criminal Writ Petition.
My clients cannot be called at any Police Stations by any Police
Officers for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. The Police can call any
person if there is any case pending either as the witness or as accused
and that to by due process of law namely by issuing summons U/s. 160 of
Criminal Procedure Code. My clients cannot be called randomly and that too
as mentioned hereinabove. Needless to state that such actions on part of
above Police Stations are totally unwarranted. The Police Officers do not
have right to call upon my clients at their whims and caprice to do
various things mentioned above. Please look into the matter seriously and
see to it that no Police Officer who is under you continues to harass my
clients failing which my clients will be compelled to adopt such legal
proceedings as advised which may entail even reprimand or such
compensatory damages as ordered by such Hon’ble Courts.
Sangita A. Musle
1. The Senior Inspector, Crime
Branch, Unit no. X, Mumbai
2. The Assistant Commissioner
of Police, Andheri Division, Mumbai
3. The Deputy Commissioner of
Police, M.I.D.C., Andheri, Mumbai
4. The Senior Inspector, D.N.
Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai.
5. The Senior Inspector
M.I.D.C. Police Station, Andheri,
6. The Senior Inspector, Juhu
Police Station, Mumbai.
The Senior Inspector, Amboli
Police Station, Mumbai.
8. The Senior Inspector,
Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai.