The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) does not have the authority to direct the registration of an FIR, as its mandate is to conduct inquiries against police officers for specific offenses, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act.

JUDGMENT

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.

3. By these petitions, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dtd. 29/7/2019, passed by the State Police Complaints Authority, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as the 'SPCA'), in SPCA/Complaint Case No.579 of 2018, on the premise that the said authority had no jurisdiction to direct the police to register an offence, and, consequently the FIR registered pursuant to the said order, being C.R. No. 264 of 2019 dtd. 12/11/2019, with the Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 409, 464, 465, 468, 471, 120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Quashing is essentially sought on the premise, that the SPCA had no authority in law to give directions to the police for registration of an FIR and that the SPCA in giving such a direction had clearly exceeded its scope of authority/jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is well settled that if the initial action itself is not in consonance with the law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would have to be set aside and cannot be sustained and as such are liable to be declared non est. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v/s Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 770. He submitted that the petitioners have a good case even on merits, however, since the impugned order passed by the SPCA is wholly without jurisdiction, the same ought to be quashed and set aside on this very ground, and consequently, the actions/proceedings arising from the said order.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2 although vehemently opposes the petitions on merits, he fairly does not dispute the fact, that the SPCA had no authority in law, to give such a direction. Learned Senior Counsel, however, submits that now that an FIR has been registered pursuant to the said direction, this Court ought not to interfere with the said investigation.

7. The short question that arises for consideration in the aforesaid petitions is, whether the impugned order dtd. 29/7/2019, passed by the SPCA, in SPCA/Complaint Case No.579 of 2018, can be sustained in law, and, if not, whether the FIR registered pursuant to the said order passed by the SPCA, is also liable to be quashed and set aside.

8. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the recommendations and directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 8 SCC 1, the Police Complaints Authority was constituted. Accordingly, the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 was amended by the Maharashtra Police (Amendment and Continuance) Act, 2014 and Ss. 22P, 22Q(1) (a) and Sec. 22R were introduced, apart from the other provisions. Accordingly, under Sec. 22P, the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) has been constituted by the State Government, to entertain complaints against police officers and police personnel, who have failed to perform their duties and functions. Sec. 22Q(1)(a) of the amended Police Act lays down the scope of the jurisdiction of the SPCA. Sec. 22Q(1) reads thus;

"22Q. (1) The State Police Complaints Authority shall exercise the powers and perform the functions as follows : -

(a) inquire suo-moto or on a complaint against Police Officers presented to it by, -

(i) a victim or any member of his family or any other person on his behalf;

(ii) the National or State Human Rights Commission; and

(iii) the police, into the