Bombay High Court
Menino Santana Fernandes vs State Of Goa Through Public Prosecutor ... on 25 August, 2025
17 WPCR-57 OF 2025.doc
Meena
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.57 OF 2025
Menino Santana Fernandes ...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Goa through public ..... RESPONDENTS
prosecutor and 2 ors
Mr. Sahil Sardessai, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED :- 25th August, 2025
ORAL ORDER:
1. Registry to waive oice objections and register the matter.
2. his petition takes exception to an order dated 04.03.2025,
passed by the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) in Case
No.SPCA/20/2015;the SPCA has rejected the Petitioner's
application, seeking to produce on record CCTV footage of an
incident complained of, which was marked as Exh.C1/A by the
17 WPCR-57 OF 2025.doc
SPCA, subject to its proof. Whilst considering the legality of the
order impugned herein, note must be taken of the chequered history
of the case before the SPCA.
3. he original complaint alleging ofences against some accused
under IPC, came to be iled on 07.05.2015, before the Maina
Curtorim Police station. he complainant as alleged before the
SPCA that the PI of Curtorim Police Station, Respondent no. 2
herein, had refused to register an FIR, and further that the Dy.S.P.,
Salcete who is Respondent No.3 herein, had failed to take any action
against the Respondent No.2 for dereliction of duty. his complaint
arose after the petitioner had iled an earlier complaint dated
07.04.2015 before the police inspector of the Maina Curtorim Police
Station and Superintendent of Police South Goa, on which
ultimately, the FIR No.45/2015 dated 08.04.2015 was registered.
After the complaint came to be iled before the SPCA, it had, in its
order of 22.09.2015 formulated 3 points for determination, which
are quoted below:
1. Whether the complainant proves that
respondents caused harassment to the complainant by
allowing boys of Nessai Sao Jose De Areal to conduct
any football tournament in the open space infront of
residential premises of the complainant at Nessai on
11.04.2015 and 12.04.2015?
17 WPCR-57 OF 2025.doc
2. Whether the complainant proves that the
respondents gave NOC for football tournament to be
held on 11.04.2015 and 12.04.2015 in the open
space in front of the residential premises of the
complainant and the same resulted-in harassment to
the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant proves that the
respondents refused to register the FIR as per the
complainant's complaint iled on 07/04/2015?"
4. All three points formulated, on the face of it, appear to fall
outside the jurisdiction of the SPCA, which is empowered to act,
basically in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash
Singh and others v/s Union of India reported in (2006)8 SCC 1).
he relevant paragraphs of that judgment are quoted below:
"Police Complaints Authority:
(6) here shall be a Police Complaints Authority at
the district level to look into complaints against
police oicers of and up to the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be
another Police Complaints Authority at the State
level to look into complaints against oicers of the
rank of Superintendent of Police and above. he
district level Authority may be headed by a retired
District Judge while the State level Authority may be
17 WPCR-57 OF 2025.doc
headed by a retired Judge of the High
Court/Supreme Court. he head of the State level
Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the State
Government out of a panel of names proposed by the
Chief Justice; the head of the district level
Complaints Authority may also be chosen out of a
panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a
Judge of the High Court nominated by him. hese
Authorities may be assisted by three to ive members
depending upon the volume of complaints in
diferent States/districts, and they shall be selected by
the State Government from a panel prepared by the
State Human Rights Commission/Lok Ayukta/State
Public Service Commission. he panel may include
members from amongst retired civil servants, police
oicers or oicers from any other department, or
from the civil society. hey would work whole time
for the Authority and would have to be suitably
remunerated for the services rendered by them. he
Authority may also need the services of regular staf
to conduct ield inquiries. For this purpose, they may
utilize the services of retired investigators from the
CID, Intelligence, Vigilance or any other
organization. he State level Complaints Authority
would take cognizance of only allegations of serious
misconduct by the police personnel, which would
include incidents involving death, grievous hurt or
rape in police custody. he district level Complaints
Authority would, apart from above cases, may also
inquire into allegations of extortion, land/house
grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of
17 WPCR-57 OF 2025.doc
authority. he recommendations of the Complaints
Authority, both at the district and State levels, for
any action, departmental or criminal, against a
delinquent police oicer shall be binding on the
authority concerned."
5. In Prakash Singh (supra), since most of the States did not have
a grievance mechanism against excesses committed by Police Oicers,
as a stop gap arrangement and until each State brought into force its
own legislation, the Supreme Court had directed the State Level
Complaints Authority, (in case of State of Goa "SPCA") to take
cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by police
personnel, which would involve incidents of death, grievous hurt, or
rape in police custody. he Supreme Court had also directed that a
District Level Complaints Authority would form to, apart from the
aforementioned cases, also inquire into allegations of extortion,
land/house grabbing, or incidents involving serious abuse of
authority.
6. Most States have by now put in place the legislation in the
form of a State Police Act which is not a case for the State of Goa.
Consequentially, the SPCA operates and is bound by the terms set
out by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra), which are
quoted hereinabove. In the State of Goa, there is no District Level
Complaints Authority but there is a single authority for the entire
17 WPCR-57 OF 2025.doc
state which deals with both State and District level complaints. he
SPCA would obviously restrict itself to the categories of cases
speciically spelt out by the Supreme Court and quoted above.
7. he impugned order dismisses an application to take on record
a Certiicate under section 65B Evidence Act on record to prove the
contents of the CD containing the footage of the incident.
here is no inirmity that can be found with the order, since the
SPCA is not empowered to investigate into the incident, which has
been complained of, and for which an FIR has been registered, that is
FIR No. 45 of 2015 in Maina Curtorim Police Station.
8. A reading of the complaint itself would indicate that though
action was taken, the Complainant alleges inaction on the part of the
two Oicers concerned. he action sought in the complaint, if
properly read, would be directly covered by sub-section 3 of section
156 CrPC, which otherwise would fall within the jurisdiction of the
concerned Magistrate.
9. However, considering that the complaint is now before the
SPCA and none of the three issues framed on 22.09.2015 fall within
its jurisdiction, as speciied in Prakash Singh (supra), the SPCA, since
the complaint is due to be inally heard on 09.09.2025, the SPCA
may also render pronouncement on its own jurisdiction including on
17 WPCR-57 OF 2025.doc
whether the complaint falls within the scope of the aforesaid
judgment under which the SPCA was brought into existence.
10. No case is made out for consideration in a Writ Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. Writ Petition is dismissed with a request to SPCA to consider
the above observations whilst rendering its order after hearing the
matter on 09.09.2025.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
