MCOCA

1st written complaint letter to Mr. Ashwani Kumar (Director, Central Bureau of Investigation)

From:
Mr. Mahendra Jagdish Agarwal,    

To,
Mr. Ashwani Kumar
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
Block no. 3, CGO Complex, 
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003  

Date: --22.06.2009

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.

Sir,

1                  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. 

2        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 75^th 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. 

4                  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.   

5                  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 24^th March 2006 to 2^nd 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 29.04.2006   obtained 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 5^th July 2006. 

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 2^nd 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.

i)                   The matter was reported to the police by the first informant very late.

ii)                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.

iii)              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 on 01.07.2006.

iv)              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.

v)                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.

vi)              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 20^th 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 2^nd May 2006 & from 28^th May to 29^th June 2006 the complainant was out of country and suddenly on 5^th 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  

Sincerely

Mahendra Agarwal

Harassment by Police Officer of Mumbai Police 
from 2010 to 2011 
Letter written by my Lawyer to Commissioner of Police

To,

The Commissioner of Police
Office of Commissioner Of Police 
D.N.Road, Opp. Crawford Market 
Mumbai 400001.

Date: 11^th November, 2011.

Sir,

Under 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:  

1.         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.  

2.         My clients thereafter filed Bail Application before the Spl. M.C.O.C. Court being Bail Application no. 9 of 2006 and His Honour Spl. M.C.O.C. Judge Shri A.M. Thipsay was pleased to grant bail to my clients on 7/9/2006.  

3.         My clients state that thereafter the State of Maharashtra filed an Application before the Hon’ble High Court at Mumbai, for the cancellation of Bail, however the same was rejected by His Lordship Justice Shri S.C.  Dharmadhikari.  

4.         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 5^th March, 2009.  

5.         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.  

6.         My clients state that after filing of the Criminal Writ Petition, the said Police Officers through the State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal being Appeal no. 850 of 2009 against my clients thereby challenging the order of acquittal dated 5^th March, 2009, passed by the Hon’ble Spl. M.C.O.C. Court .  

7.         My clients state that the Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra has been admitted and the Criminal Writ Petition filed by my client is tagged along with the Criminal Appeal and the same are pending for final hearing in the Hon’ble High Court.  

8.         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:          

(a).      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 Police Officer.  

(b).      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.  

(d).      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 officer.   

(e).      Again on 21/7/2010 all my clients were called at Detection Department of Andheri Police and oral enquiry was made.  

(f).        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.  

(g).      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.  

(h).       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.  

(i).        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.  

(j).        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.  

(k).       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.  

9.         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 etc.  

(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.  

(iv)       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. 

10.       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.  

Thanking you,  

Yours truly, 

Sangita A. Musle

Advocate.

Copy to:

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, Mumbai.

6. The Senior Inspector, Juhu Police Station, Mumbai.  

7.  The Senior Inspector, Amboli Police Station, Mumbai.

8. The Senior Inspector, Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai.