Bombay HC Stays MSHRC Order Directing Compensation To Jeweller In Extortion Case Against Policemen

Mumbai: In a reprieve for Mumbai Police Commissioner Vivek Phansalkar and DCP Zone 1 Pravin Mundhe, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed an order of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) directing them to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to a jeweller, Nishant Jain, who alleged that he was extorted by four policemen from Azad Maidan police station.

A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela Gokhale stayed the MSHRC’s December 3, 2024 order and subsequent letter dated December 18, 2024, by the MSHRC secretary to the State asking for compliance, until the next hearing.

Jain, who owns Gurjar Jewellers at Bora Bazar in South Mumbai, alleged that on March 1, 2024, PSI Kajal Pansare and policemen Sudarshan Puri, Shrikrishna Jaibhai and Rajesh Palkar of the Azad Maidan police station threatened to implicate him in a false case of buying stolen jewellery and demanded Rs 50,000. He claimed he was released after paying Rs 25,000 in cash. He sent complaints to Phansalkar, DCP Mundhe, and the MSHRC, which later directed the registration of an FIR and awarded compensation.

However, a fact-finding inquiry supervised by the DCP revealed no evidence of extortion. CCTV footage from inside and outside Azad Maidan police station did not capture any cash exchange, though it confirmed Jain’s visit.

The officers were found to have acted irregularly — visiting Jain’s shop and calling him to the police station without informing their seniors or making diary entries. As a result, their annual salary increments were withheld for two years, a major penalty under the police manual.

The inquiry report, submitted to the Director General of Police (DGP), led to a second, de novo inquiry by the ACP, South Region. The ACP also found no case of extortion, though he stated the matter could involve “illegal gratification,” falling under the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s jurisdiction. The DGP forwarded this suggestion and the report to the MSHRC.

The petition filed in HC argues that the MSHRC passed its order without giving the officers a hearing and that the complaint did not disclose any human rights violation. I

The plea contended that the MSHRC “gravely erred” in holding that there has been breach of honor and dignity of Jain under the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

“The Hon'ble Commission failed to apply judicial mind to the facts of the case which do not disclose any violation of rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the complainant as guaranteed under the International Covenants or enshrined in the Constitution of India,” it said, adding, “save and except the bald allegations of verbal abuse and threat, there is no iota of evidence to show any arbitrary deprivation of Right to life, torture, cruelty, degrading treatment and / or arbitrary detention”.