“If the restaurant owner genuinely decided that he no longer wanted to pursue the complaint, that decision should be respected. But if he withdrew it because of pressure, influence, fear or persuasion, then that becomes a separate and serious issue that deserves investigation.
The police should therefore answer some basic questions.
What exactly did the restaurant owner state when the complaint was initially made? What changed later? Who contacted him between the complaint and its withdrawal? Were there any discussions with the accused or people connected to them? Did the complainant face any pressure? Were restaurant employees also approached or influenced?
Most importantly, why did a person who considered the incident serious enough to complain to the police subsequently decide to withdraw that complaint?”
A restaurant owner first approaches the police with a complaint alleging misbehaviour involving police personnel. The matter comes under investigation. Then, the same complainant withdraws the complaint.
The obvious question is: Why?
Was the complaint withdrawn voluntarily, or was the restaurant owner under pressure to withdraw it?
That question cannot simply be brushed aside.
The issue assumes greater significance because the complaint reportedly involved PSI Viraj Sawant and Patil, while the police have acknowledged that an enquiry is continuing despite the withdrawal. If there was nothing unusual about the withdrawal, there should be no difficulty in establishing how and why the complainant changed his stand.
The public is not asking for anyone to be declared guilty without an investigation. Nor should any police officer be condemned merely because allegations have been made against him. Every person is entitled to a fair hearing.
But fairness must work both ways.
If the restaurant owner genuinely decided that he no longer wanted to pursue the complaint, that decision should be respected. But if he withdrew it because of pressure, influence, fear or persuasion, then that becomes a separate and serious issue that deserves investigation.
The police should therefore answer some basic questions.
What exactly did the restaurant owner state when the complaint was initially made? What changed later? Who contacted him between the complaint and its withdrawal? Were there any discussions with the accused or people connected to them? Did the complainant face any pressure? Were restaurant employees also approached or influenced?
Most importantly, why did a person who considered the incident serious enough to complain to the police subsequently decide to withdraw that complaint?
The CCTV footage from the restaurant may reveal what happened during the incident. But CCTV cannot necessarily reveal what happened afterwards.
That is where the investigation must go deeper.
The police have stated that the dispute reportedly began over a food bill and that Akash, a friend of PSI Sawant, allegedly argued with restaurant staff. They have also said that Sawant was seated beside Akash and did not use abusive language, while suggesting that he should have intervened to stop the argument.
If this is the police version, it must be tested against the available evidence and statements of those present.
But there is another important dimension.
When a complaint involving police personnel is withdrawn, the circumstances surrounding that withdrawal become part of the story. A withdrawal cannot automatically be treated as proof that the original allegations were false. At the same time, it cannot automatically be treated as proof that the accused were guilty.
The truth lies in the investigation.
And that investigation must be independent, transparent and credible.
If there was no pressure, the police should have no hesitation in establishing that fact. If pressure was exerted, the person responsible must be identified.
This is not about protecting a restaurant owner or targeting a police officer. It is about protecting public confidence in the system.
A citizen must feel free to approach the police when he believes he has been wronged. But that confidence will suffer if people begin believing that complaints can disappear after pressure is applied behind closed doors.
Porvorim Police now have an opportunity to clear the air.
The question is no longer merely what happened inside the restaurant.
The bigger question is what happened after the complaint was filed.
And until that question is answered, the withdrawal of the complaint will continue to raise eyebrows.
Was it withdrawn because the complainant changed his mind, or because someone pressured him to change it?
That is the question the investigation must answer.
