How Cyberabad inspector Rapolu Srinivas faked charges, blackmailed for money and got suspended

Telangana: A Telangana police official named inspector Rapolu Srinivas of RGIA police station was suspended for misusing power, dereliction of duties and filing false FIRs against four members of a family naming them as accused. The suspension orders were issued by Cyberabad commissioner Avinash Mohanty on Thursday.

The issue came to light after Naragani Yasaswin, a corporate employee working in Mumbai and a native of Gachibowli, approached the DGP alleged the inspector had blackmailed her and family and registered false FIRs against them. The family wanted a thorough enquiry and appropriate action against Rapolu Srinivas for registering false FIRs without jurisdiction and for blackmailing.

Case details

According to Naragani Yasaswin, her mother was working in the real estate sector when Mandava Sharada invested money with her. Later, differences arose which led to Sharada lodging a false complaint against her mother and father for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC at the RGI Airport police station.

Yasaswin alleged that acting in connivance with Mandava Sharada, inspector Rapolu Srinivas registered an FIR (No 367 of 2023) against her and threatened the complainant’s mother to cough up a ransom to settle the matter with Sharada. Upon her refusal, she was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on August 4, 2023 in the said crime by adding Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act.

Damage to reputation

“Inspector R Srinivas put handcuffs on my mother, took photographs and sent them to the de facto complainant Sharada and she in turn circulated them on social media. Apart from that Srinivas facilitated Sharada with a ‘confession statement’ of my mother and Sharada circulated it on WhatsApp groups to tarnish my family’s image and reputation,” said the petitioner.

The inspector also allegedly tried to extort money by threatening to arrest Yasaswin, her father and brother in the same case.

“Though there is no transaction among the three of us with Mandava Sharada, all our names were added to the crime to blackmail us. As we did not oblige the illegal demands of Sharada at the behest of Rapolu Srinivas, he arrested my brother Girish Kumar in July and kept him in lockup for a whole night. My brother is a chronic asthma patient and when he requested the duty officers to keep him outside the lockup the police personnel did not heed his request due to which his health deteriorated,” the complainant said.

Incomplete evidence

Further, the police remanded him to judicial custody without any reason and seized his mobile phones. He was later granted bail.

It is stated that the police have seized the mobile phone of the petitioner (A3) and it is alleged that there were objectionable photographs/private photographs of the de facto complainant in the mobile phone.

In fact, the mobile phone was produced before the court only for perusal and immediately after giving it for perusal, the investigating officer took it back stating that they needed it for further investigation. The court did not get any opportunity to see what kind of objectionable photographs the mobile phone contained.

The contents of FIR do not refer to the role of A3. However, in the remand report, the A3’s role was mentioned. It is not known what were the charges based on which led to the IO arresting the A3.

False charges

Another important aspect in this case is that the complainant has filed a memo adding Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act and to attract this provision, there should be several depositors.

Though there is no specific number mentioned, there should be more than one depositor to attract the provision and the said provision becomes relevant when more people have deposited money with a particular person or institution expecting more money returns.

In this case, admittedly, money was transferred to the account of A1 from the account of the de facto complainant to invest in the ‘land bank’. That means the de facto complainant has invested the amount in the real estate business and expected returns.

Even according to the case of the prosecution, the de facto complainant has asked A1 and A2 to refund the money or to convey the land and on refusal to do the same by A1 and A2, they have reported to the police.

“There is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transaction involved in this case is a civil dispute in nature. Though the court, at this stage, is not able to form any opinion regarding the nature of the case, predominantly, it appears that the dispute is civil,” said the complainant, in the letter written to the DGP Telangana.

Girish Kumar is due to join The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA to pursue higher studies in August 2023. Admission to the university was confirmed and he was issued an F1 Visa by the authorities. But due to the implication of his name in the false crime, his dreams of studying in a foreign university have been shattered, the petition said.

“As my family is not succumbing to the illegal demands made of Mandava Sharada through Inspector Rapolu Srinivas, he started pressurising me by disturbing me at my workplace. The police went to my office Axis Bank Ltd in Mumbai and made scandalous remarks about me before my colleagues and management. After coming to know about the inclusion of my name in the FIR as A4, apprehending arrest, I filed an anticipatory bail petition and brought to the notice of the court that though there are no transactions between myself and the de facto complainant, my name was falsely included as A4,” said the petitioner

No jurisdiction

The police/de facto complainant has been making an investigation and even started searching for petitioners/accused in Mumbai and other places, but did not take to find out whether the money was transferred by the A1 within the jurisdiction of RGIA PS.

“So far, the investigating officer has traced out the place from which the amounts were allegedly transferred to the account of the A1 from the account of the de facto complainant. If this fact is not ascertained or if it is not proved that the transactions did not take place from and within the jurisdiction of RGIA police station the investigating officer would not have any jurisdiction to further probe the case. It is not known as to why the investigating officer so far did not investigate the matter on these lines.”

The police could have placed any record to show that huge amounts were deposited in the account of A1. The only allegation that was made against the A1 is that the de facto complainant deposited money in her account. It is doubtful whether the provisions of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act 1999 attract to the case on hand.

Prima facie the prosecution did not establish that the A1 is running a financial institution. There may be certain lapses in the investigation and it appears that on certain occasions, the police exceeded their normal functioning level in this case and ‘extraordinary enthusiasm’ was shown.