Father Accuses Police of Collusion After Daughter’s Suspicious Death, Moves Bombay High Court for FIR and Contempt Action

Petitioner moves Bombay High Court Alleges Palghar Police Shielded Husband, Paramour; Seeks CBI Probe and Action Under Contempt of Courts Act

MUMBAI – In a wrenching case that alleges severe police apathy and collusion, a father has approached the Bombay High Court seeking justice for his daughter, whose death he claims was murder covered up by the local police. The petition, filed by Jitendra Vijaypati Dubey, not only demands the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) but also unprecedented prayers for initiating contempt proceedings against the erring police officials for flouting a landmark Supreme Court judgment.

The petition, filed through advocate Dwivendra Devtadeen Dubey in Bombay High Court narrates a harrowing sequence of events beginning May 22, 2024, when the petitioner’s daughter, Komal Dhiraj Dubey, was found dead under suspicious circumstances at her husband’s house in Palghar. The petitioner alleges that her husband, Dheeraj Dubey, and his paramour had threatened to kill Komal 15 days prior to the incident.

The core of the grievance lies in the alleged conduct of the Boisar MIDC Police Station personnel. Jitendra Dubey states that he was shockingly informed by Police Sub-Inspector Vitthal Mankeri on May 25, 2024, that his daughter’s post-mortem had already been conducted without the family’s knowledge or consent. When the family questioned this, they were allegedly threatened and manhandled at the police station.

Despite submitting written complaints on May 25, 2024, and October 7, 2024, to the Boisar police and the Superintendent of Police in Palghar, no FIR was registered. The petition includes these complaints as exhibits, showing repeated assurances from senior officers that an FIR would be lodged, followed by complete inaction. The petitioner also cites a letter from Sir J.J. Hospital’s forensic department, dated April 3, 2025, which states the final cause of death is pending auxiliary reports, adding to the cloud of suspicion.

The petition elevates the legal stakes by invoking the Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP, which mandates the registration of an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence. It argues that the willful failure of the police to do so constitutes a contempt of the Supreme Court’s authority. The petitioner has therefore pleaded for actions against the responsible officers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in addition to administrative and penal action.

Further allegations include police collusion with the accused, citing an instance where the deceased’s minor son reportedly told a Deputy Superintendent of Police that his “Papa and Bua (paramour) killed Mummy with a pillow.” The officer allegedly dismissed the child’s statement due to his minority.

Frustrated by the local police’s “casual, cavalier, and callous approach,” the petitioner has also written to the President of India, the Home Ministers of India and Maharashtra, and the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe.

Conclusion

Jitendra Dubey’s petition transcends an individual tragedy. It has positioned itself as a litmus test for the enforceability of the Supreme Court’s most robust directives on policing. The case starkly questions whether the judiciary can effectively wield its contempt powers to discipline a police force perceived as operating with impunity, especially in cases involving powerful local influences or sheer institutional apathy.

The writ petition, pending before the Bombay High Court, has sought multiple reliefs: immediate registration of an FIR, transfer of the investigation to the CBI, initiation of contempt proceedings against the police officials, and disciplinary action against them. This case highlights a grave alleged failure of the criminal justice system at the police station level, where protectors are accused of becoming perpetrators of obstruction. The Bombay High Court’s decision will be closely watched, as it touches upon the fundamental rights of victims’ families and the accountability of law enforcement agencies mandated by the Supreme Court. The next course of action awaits the Bombay High court’s admission hearing and subsequent proceedings.

Read More:-

Bombay High Court Orders Refund with Interest, Criticizes Decade-Long Delay in Stamp Duty Case