An FIR has been registered against seven police personnel in Bharatpur, Rajasthan, following allegations that a 16-year-old boy was physically assaulted, threatened with a country-made pistol, and framed in a false illegal-arms case after he refused to continue paying ₹10,000 per month in alleged extortion money. The case was registered at Mathura Gate police station on a court directive, with charges including provisions of the POCSO Act, based on a complaint filed by the minor's aunt.

Who Is Accused and What They Are Alleged to Have Done

The seven accused include Constables Dashrath, Ankit, Satyveer, Hariom, and Abhimanyu — all reportedly associated with the District Special Team (DST) — along with ASI Shivlal, posted at Mathura Gate police station, and one other officer. According to the complaint, Constable Dashrath first visited the minor's rental car business office and allegedly demanded ₹10,000 per month as a recurring payment. The family alleges the minor paid the amount for three consecutive months out of fear before stopping when the business shut down due to financial losses.

The alleged demands reportedly continued even after the business had closed. When the minor refused further payments, Dashrath allegedly threatened to implicate him in a criminal case.

The Alleged Assault on 21 August

According to the complaint, the minor had travelled to Khatu Shyam Ji with friends on 19 August and was returning to Bharatpur on 21 August when his car developed a flat tyre at around 9 am. While he stopped near a roadside shop for tea, two DST personnel — identified as Ankit and Manveer — allegedly arrived and took him away, claiming Constable Dashrath had summoned him.

At the DST office, the minor was allegedly beaten with belts, kicks, and punches. Constable Hariom is accused of standing on the minor's legs during the assault. Later, around 5 pm, ASI Shivlal allegedly arrived with two other officers. The minor was reportedly blindfolded and transported to an isolated location.

The complaint further alleges that a country-made pistol — locally referred to as a katta — was retrieved from a bag and held against the minor's leg. The accused allegedly threatened to shoot him unless he recorded a video statement as instructed. The weapon was then purportedly placed inside the minor's clothing before the personnel staged a search and filmed what they presented as a recovery of the firearm.

An illegal-arms case was registered against the minor on 21 August following the alleged staged recovery. His family, upon learning of the booking, reached the police station and secured his bail. Family members reportedly noticed severe injury marks on the boy's body when he returned home.

How the Court Intervened

The family subsequently approached the judiciary. Advocate Paramveer Sogarwal, representing the complainant's side, said an application was filed before the court on 26 August. The court summoned Mathura Gate SHO Harlal Meena and directed that an FIR be registered. The FIR was formally lodged on Friday, following the court's direction.

The investigation has been handed to Hemendra Chaudhary, SHO of Atal Band police station. SHO Harlal Meena confirmed the FIR was registered on the basis of the aunt's complaint. All allegations against the accused personnel remain subject to investigation, and the exact circumstances surrounding the alleged assault, extortion, and arms recovery are yet to be established.

Background and Broader Context

The minor's aunt, who filed the complaint, stated that the boy's father died shortly after his birth, after which she brought him to Bharatpur and took responsibility for his education and upbringing. The minor had started the rental car business in December of the previous year — a venture that allegedly made him a target of the accused constable almost immediately.

This case adds to a pattern of complaints against police personnel in Rajasthan involving alleged extortion of small business owners. The involvement of a POCSO charge — given the victim's age — significantly raises the legal stakes for the accused. Critics argue that the court's intervention was necessary because the family's initial attempts to seek redress through the police chain did not result in an FIR being registered voluntarily.

With the investigation now assigned to a separate police station, all eyes will be on whether the probe proceeds independently of the accused personnel's institutional networks.