Bombay High Court
MANLESH EKNATH JAISWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- RULE DISCHARGED
Holding
The petition is dismissed; no compensation is awarded and the request for CCTV footage is rejected as infructuous.
Summary
The petitioner, Manlesh, alleged that he was illegally tortured and beaten by police officers (Respondents 4‑7) at Shahada Police Station on 18 May 2020 and sought Rs 5 lakhs compensation from the State and the CCTV footage of the station for 18‑20 May 2020. The State argued that criminal cases under IPC sections 353, 506, 188, 268 and Bombay Police Act section 120 have been registered against both the petitioner and the police officers, and that the petition for compensation was premature pending the outcome of those prosecutions. The Court noted that a separate writ petition (No. 6803 of 2023) had already established that the CCTV system at the station had been non‑functional since January 2020, rendering the request for footage impossible. Consequently, the Court held that the compensation claim could not be entertained before the criminal trial concluded and that the CCTV request was infructuous. The petition was therefore dismissed with no relief granted.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to monetary compensation for alleged police torture before the criminal trial against the police officers is concluded.
- Whether the High Court can direct the production of CCTV footage when the CCTV system was non‑functional during the relevant period.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Police Act — s. 120
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 188, 268, 353, 506
Subjects
- police torture
- compensation
- CCTV footage
- premature relief
- high court writ petition
- criminal pending
- police misconduct
- Indian Penal Code
- Bombay Police Act
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40191-DB
(1)
Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1664 OF 2020
Manlesh S/o Eknath Jaiswal,
Age : 38 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Plot No. 15, Bharat Nagar,
Shahada Tq. Shahada, Dist.
Nandurbar. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Inspector,
Shahada Police Station, Shahada,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar
2. The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Shahada Dn, Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Nandurbar
4. Kishan S/o Laxman Najan Patil,
Age : 54 Years, Occ. Police Officer,
At present Pachora Police Station,
Pachora, Dist Jalgaon
5. Vikrant S/o Rajendra Kachare,
Age : 32 Years, Occ. Police
Shahada Police Station, Shahada,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar
6. Kailas S/o Keshav Mali,
Age : 28 Years, Occ. Police
Shahada Police Station, Shahada,
Tq. Shahda, Dist. Nandurbar
7. Deepak S/o Waman Bhoi,
Age : 40 Years, Occ. Police,
Shahada Police Station, Shahada,
Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar ..RESPONDENTS
(2)
Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt
...
Mr. B. R. Waramaa, Advocate for the Petitioner.
S. J. Salgare, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 4 to 7.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has claimed following
reliefs :-
(A) To award compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs from Respondent
No.1 on account of illegal torture and beating to
petitioner in Police Station Shahada, District Nandurbar
on 18.05.2020 by Respondent No.4 to respondent No.7 by
holding Respondent No.1 to 7 jointly and several liable
for illegal acts of torture and beating to petitioner.
(B) To direct respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to supply CCTV footage
for 18.05.2020 to 20.05.2020 to the petitioner and/ or
send the installed CCTV at Shahada Police Station to
Government Lab at Kalina, Mumbai or authorized place
for recovery of recorded footage for 18.05.2020 to
20.05.2020 and to submit report to this Hon'ble Court.
(3)
Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt
3. According to the petitioner, he was beaten in the police
station, by the Police Inspector Kishan Patil and other police officers
viz. respondent Nos. 4 to 7. In view of the same, the petitioner is
claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent No.1 in
respect of the aforesaid illegal torture and also claimed the CCTV
footage of the concerned Shahada Police Station from 18.05.2020 to
20.05.2020.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits
that, the petitioner must be compensated for the high-handed action
taken by respondent Nos.4 to 7, who beaten him mercilessly in the
police station, which might have been captured in the CCTV footage of
the said police station.
5. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. by relying on certain
documents, strongly opposed the submissions and submits that, in fact
the offence under Sections 353, 506, 188 and 268 of the Indian Penal
Code has been registered against the petitioner and the trial
thereupon is pending in the Court of learned District & Sessions
Judge, Shahada. Pursuant to the order dated 11.06.2021, passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, (F.C.), Shahada, a crime has already
been registered against the errant police officers. However, it has been
stayed by this Court in Criminal Application No.1839 of 2021, wherein
quashing of the said crime is contemplated by respondent Nos.4 to 7.
(4)
Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt
He further submitted that, since the crime is now registered against
respondent Nos.4 to 7, the prayer of getting compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- appears to be premature at this juncture.
So far as CCTV footage as claimed by the petitioner is
concerned, the petitioner is already aware that no such CCTV footage
was available, as it was elaborately stated in the reply by the State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.6803 of 2023 filed by the petitioner
himself. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Admittedly, crime under Sections 353, 506, 188 and 268
of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 120 of the Bombay Police
Act has been registered against the petitioner. Moreover, pursuant to
the order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the concerned learned Judicial
Magistrate, (F.C.), Shahada in Criminal Misc. Application No.469 of
2020, crime against respondent Nos.4 to 7, who are the police
officials, against whom the petitioner is having grievance, is also
registered, in respect of beating to the petitioner. However, under the
order dated 22nd June 2022, this Court, in Criminal Application
No.1839 of 2021 filed by those officers, has stayed that order by way
of interim relief. Not only that, but for getting the CCTV footage as
claimed in this petition, the petitioner has also filed separate Writ
Petition No.6803 of 2023 and the same is pending.
7. Considering these circumstances, it appears that, for the
(5)
Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt
grievance of alleged illegal beating, the crime has already been
registered against respondent Nos.4 to 7, and therefore, the prayer of
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- can be considered only after result of
the said criminal prosecution. Thus, the prayer in respect of
compensation appears premature at this juncture.
8. So far as claim of petitioner for getting CCTV footage is
concerned, the State of Maharashtra has already filed reply to the Writ
Petition No.6803 of 2023 filed by the petitioner, wherein it is stated
that, as per the direction of this Court in the said petition, the Special
Inspector General of Police, Nashik had directed under his letter dated
31.01.2024 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Dhule to
conduct preliminary inquiry. Accordingly, the inquiry was conducted
and it was revealed that CCTV installed in Shahada Police Station, was
not in working condition since January 2020.
9. The inquiry report also disclosed that it was the duty of
the concerned In-charge of the police station to take necessary steps
for repairing of the said DVR and to inform the senior officer for
taking further steps. All these facts are mentioned in the aforesaid
affidavit-in-reply filed in the said petition on 08.10.2024. Since the
said petition was filed by the present petitioner only, he was well
aware about non-existence of such CCTV footage for the period from
18.05.2020 to 20.05.2020. As such, the prayer of the petitioner in this
(6)
Cri. W. P. 1664-2020.odt
petition for getting those CCTV footage, has also become infructuous.
10. In view of the same, no relief, as prayed by the petitioner
in this petition can be granted. In view of the same, the petition stands
dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
(VAISHALI PTIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
Checking your session…