High Court steps in after repeated complaints allegedly ignored
The Tripura High Court has ordered that the alleged theft of three kilograms of gold be investigated by the state Crime Branch, after petitioners accused local police of failing to lodge an FIR despite repeated approaches to more than one police station and a subsequent written complaint to higher authorities.
Petitioners told the court that they initially approached the Bishalgarh Police Station with details of the missing gold but that their request to record a complaint was refused. They said a subsequent visit to Sonamura Police Station met with the same response. A written complaint was later submitted to the Superintendent of Police (SP) office for Sepahijala district on 28 February, which was received on 3 March, yet no FIR was registered, the petition asserted.
Allegations of restricted access and delayed action
The petitioners alleged that a vehicle containing seized items or materials relevant to the matter had entered a police station compound on two occasions, but they were not permitted to witness any activity related to it. They described the conduct of the local police as deliberate inaction and sought prompt investigations and arrests.
Advocate Shankar Lodh, representing the petitioners before the High Court, argued that depending on the facts established during inquiry, provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita could be applicable. The petition also sought the registration of an FIR against the Officer-in-Charge of Bishalgarh Police Station and two other personnel.
Administrative response and court directive
Earlier, the Sepahijala Superintendent of Police, Bijay Debbarma, had ordered an internal inquiry and directed an Additional SP to look into the matter. The complainants, however, said that the inquiry had made little progress. The High Court has now directed that the case be formally registered and handed over to a competent Crime Branch officer so the probe can proceed independently and under judicial scrutiny.
| Key dates | Action |
|---|---|
| 28 February | Written complaint reportedly submitted to SP office (Sepahijala) |
| 3 March | Complaint received in SP office, according to petitioners |
Questions raised and public interest concerns
The petition has raised several pressing questions that the High Court’s order implicitly seeks to address: where the alleged three kilograms of gold went; why an FIR was not registered despite repeated approaches; and what, if any, evidence exists regarding alleged involvement or negligence by police personnel.
- Accountability: Petitioners want formal registration of offences and action against named police personnel.
- Independent probe: The High Court has insisted on a Crime Branch investigation to ensure impartiality.
- Evidence access: Complainants claim they were denied access to observe material or vehicles entering police premises.
What happens next
Following the court order, the matter will be transferred to the state Crime Branch for investigation. The Crime Branch is expected to take statements, examine available documents, trace the alleged movement of the gold, and audit police station records and related material. If the probe establishes offences by police personnel, departmental action as well as criminal proceedings could follow.
The High Court’s directive underscores judicial insistence on timely registration of cognisable offences and independent investigation where allegations of official inaction arise. The case also highlights public concern over transparency in handling high-value property and the duty of police to record complaints and preserve evidence.
At this stage the court has not detailed timelines for the Crime Branch to complete its inquiry. The identities of the petitioners have not been disclosed in court documents made public, and no formal comment was available from the Officer-in-Charge named in the petition at the time of reporting.
The transfer of the case to the Crime Branch marks a significant escalation from internal inquiry to a specialised criminal investigation, reflecting judicial reluctance to allow potential procedural lapses at station level to impede a probe into high-value alleged thefts.
