Back
Orders FIR Registration Against Police Over Alleged Gold
A Gold Rush Interrupted: Police Detention Leads to Missing Ornaments
The has delivered a significant ruling, directing the state police to register an FIR and conduct an into allegations that police officers misappropriated gold ornaments and bars from a citizen during a routine vehicle check. The Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha held that the under (BNSS) cannot be sidestepped simply because the accused are police personnel.
Detained and Dispossessed: The Petitioner’s Ordeal
The case revolves around Billal Miah, a resident of Sepahijala district, who along with his two brothers was traveling to Agartala on , to sell gold ornaments and bars to raise funds for a brother’s medical treatment. Near Bishalgarh College, Sub-Inspector Banijoy Reang and two constables intercepted their vehicle. Instead of being taken directly to the nearby —just 2.5 kilometers away—the brothers were first driven to an isolated tea garden for a search and then to the station, where they were detained the entire day. When finally released in the evening, they discovered the vehicle’s back door open and the gold missing. Their subsequent attempts to lodge a complaint at were allegedly refused, and a written appeal to the Superintendent of Police went unanswered.
Statutory Duty Overrides Police Resistance
The petitioner’s counsel, , argued that the complaint clearly disclosed under the , attracting punishment exceeding seven years. He contended that by virtue of Section 173 BNSS, the police were duty-bound to register an FIR immediately. He pointed to in the respondents’ affidavits and highlighted that a report by the Additional Superintendent of Police revealed that SI Banijoy Reang entered the vehicle twice inside the station premises and that the vehicle was moved—corroborating the petitioner’s story.
Respondents No. 6 and 7, represented by , argued that the petitioner never approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and failed to produce receipts or lawful documents establishing ownership of the gold. The state’s Public Prosecutor, , informed the court that disciplinary action had already been taken against SI Reang, who was placed under suspension for . He further submitted that CCTV footage did not substantiate the theft allegations.
No FIR? No Excuse: Court Rejects Ownership Argument at Preliminary Stage
The court found the police’s conduct deeply concerning. “The admitted conduct of taking the intercepted vehicle to an isolated tea garden instead of the nearby Police Station which was barely 2.5 kilometers away raises serious concerns,” the Bench observed. The court categorically rejected the argument that failure to produce ownership documents justified the refusal to register an FIR. “Whether the petitioner holds lawful ownership and valid receipts for the gold bars, or whether the allegations of against the respondent police officials are substantiated, are matters that can be determined only by way of thorough, independent and comprehensive investigation,” the court stated.
Key Observation: Mandate Under Section 173 BNSS
In a powerful passage, the court declared: “When a citizen lodges a specific complaint disclosing the commission of involving alleged and by police personnel, the under requires the and an impartial investigation.”
Independent Probe Ordered: to Take Over
Allowing the , the court directed the state authorities to register the petitioner’s written complaint. It further ordered the appointment of a senior officer from the to conduct an independent, fair, and expeditious investigation. The entire record of the case, including CCTV footage and reports, is to be transferred to the investigating officer. The court also vacated any and closed pending applications.
This ruling reinforces the principle that the police cannot be , and that the to register an FIR exists even when the allegations are directed against the very officers who are supposed to enforce the law.
