An encounter legal complaint submitted to Maharashtra Police and human rights authorities has sought registration of an FIR and the formation of an independent Special Investigation Team regarding statements allegedly made by former Mumbai Police officer Pradeep Sharma in a publicly available interview. The representation, filed by Advocate Ghansyam Upadhyay, concerns comments relating to the death of Rafiq, also known as Rafiq Dabbawala. The complaint requests forensic verification of interview footage, preservation of digital evidence, and examination of whether further investigation is warranted. It emphasises that the allegations remain unverified and subject to lawful scrutiny.

Pradeep Sharma Encounter Complaint: FIR, SIT Probe Sought Over Alleged Rafiq Dabbawala Killing Claims

A legal complaint submitted to senior police and human rights authorities has sought registration of an FIR and constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) following statements attributed to former Mumbai Police officer Pradeep Sharma in a publicly available interview concerning the death of Rafiq, also referred to as Rafique Dabbawala.

The Pradeep Sharma encounter complaint has triggered calls for an independent investigation after a legal representation alleged that statements made during a publicly available video interview warrant examination by law enforcement authorities.

According to the complaint dated June 16, 2026, advocate Ghansyam Upadhyay of Law Juris addressed representations to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission and the National Human Rights Commission. The complaint seeks registration of an FIR and formation of an independent SIT.

The representation states that the complaint is based on a publicly circulated interview and related material available in the public domain. The complainant specifically clarified that he is not an eyewitness and does not claim personal knowledge of the events described.

Interview Statements Become Focus of Fresh Scrutiny

According to the complaint, the controversy centres on statements allegedly made by former police officer Pradeep Sharma in a video interview and associated social media clips discussing Rafiq or Rafique Dabbawala.

The complaint alleges that the contents of the interview, if found authentic and unedited after forensic verification, may require authorities to examine whether the death of Rafiq Dabbawala was a lawful police encounter or whether further investigation is warranted.

The document repeatedly emphasises that the allegations remain unverified and that the statements should not be treated as judicial facts. Instead, it argues that the interview constitutes information deserving independent scrutiny through legally prescribed procedures.

Publicly available reports referenced in the complaint describe Rafiq Dabbawala as a person allegedly linked to the Subhash Thakur gang. Historical media reports cited in the representation reportedly attributed the encounter death to operations involving Pradeep Sharma during the early 2000s.

Also Read: Ulhasnagar Land Survey Dispute Leads to FIR Against Four.

YouTube Interview, Media Reports and Documentary Evidence

The complaint refers to a YouTube interview titled “Mumbai’s Most Wanted & The Fake Encounter Question – Pradeep Sharma Unhinged!” and a related short video titled “Rafique Dabba Wala Vs Pradeep Sharma.” It identifies crime journalist and author S. Hussain Zaidi as the apparent interviewer and seeks the preservation of the original recordings, transcripts, and metadata.

The representation requests that authorities obtain unedited footage, upload records, communication logs, device information, and related digital evidence from relevant parties, including YouTube and associated entities, subject to applicable legal procedures.

Several judicial precedents are cited in support of the request, including Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty and State through CBI v. Hemendra Reddy.

Demand for Independent SIT and Wider Asset Examination

Beyond the alleged encounter, the complaint also seeks examination of records, diaries, operational documents and other materials that may have existed concerning Rafiq Dabbawala.

The representation further requests scrutiny of alleged corporate interests, directorships, assets, financial records and related transactions that may be linked to Pradeep Sharma, while expressly stating that such matters require official verification and should not be treated as established facts.

The complainant has urged authorities to constitute an independent SIT not connected with units where Pradeep Sharma previously served. The requested investigation would also examine the role of any officers or individuals who may have participated in, authorised, supervised or subsequently justified the encounter, if any illegality is ultimately established.

The matter now rests with the concerned authorities, who will determine whether any preliminary verification, preservation of evidence or further legal action is required under applicable law. Sprouts News will continue to monitor developments as and when official responses emerge.

Readers’ Appeal:

Readers having information, documents, records, or views relating to this matter may contact Senior Investigative Journalist Unmesh Gujarathi and the Sprouts News Investigation Team on 9322755098. All credible inputs will be treated with appropriate confidentiality and journalistic responsibility.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.