Same six ‘omnipresent’ witnesses testify across scores of Madhya Pradesh police cases

One of the six, Amit Kushwaha, is alleged to have accompanied Thakur during his transfers and was named as a witness in hundreds of cases.

• Six individuals repeatedly cited as witnesses in hundreds of FIRs in Mauganj, MP
• RTI activist claims misuse of witnesses to legitimize police actions, corruption
• Police removed station in-charge Thakur; detailed inquiry into FIRs underway

Did our AI summary help?

Allegations of “omnipresent” police witnesses have snowballed into a major controversy in Madhya Pradesh’s Mauganj district after scrutiny of digital crime records revealed that the same six individuals were repeatedly cited as government witnesses in hundreds of cases across multiple police stations, according to Times of India.

Data accessed through the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS), a Union home ministry project, showed that FIRs registered at Laur and Naigadhi police stations frequently named the same set of witnesses.

At the centre of the controversy is Jagdish Singh Thakur, the former in-charge of both Naigadhi and Laur police stations. According to TOI,   an RTI activist has accused Thakur of misusing his position to register more than 150 questionable FIRs, allegedly by relying on a small group of “favoured” witnesses to legitimise routine police actions and facilitate corruption.

The complaint alleged that these individuals were cited repeatedly to complete legal formalities on paper, regardless of whether they were actually present during raids or seizures. One of the six, Amit Kushwaha, is alleged to have accompanied Thakur during his transfers and was named as a witness in hundreds of cases.

The TOI report stated that RTI activist Kunj Bihari Tiwari first lodged a police complaint in 2022 and submitted a fresh, detailed complaint in December 2025, along with what he claims is documentary proof. According to him, FIR records show a clear pattern of the same names recurring case after case.

Acting on the complaint, Mauganj Superintendent of Police Dilip Soni removed Thakur from his post as Naigadhi police station in-charge on Sunday. “We are getting the complaint probed in detail. The complainant has shared details of 145 FIRs with common witnesses,” Soni told TOI. He added that this was “one of the reasons” for the action, but not the only one.

Meanwhile, some of the individuals named witnesses have distanced themselves from the police action, claiming they were not witnesses in many of the cases cited. Police officials told TOI that a detailed inquiry will establish the facts.

Dinesh Kushwaha, a vegetable vendor, told TOI: “I signed as a witness in only one or two cases where I was present. I wasn’t a witness in so many other cases. Police wrote my name as a witness without my knowledge.”

Another witness, Rahul Vishwakarma, said: “I was not present during the action. Iused to sign after the accused were arrested and brought to the police station. But I did not sign as a witness in so many cases. I am a driver.

However, TOI accessed and examined copies of over 40 such FIRs and found the same names repeatedly listed as witnesses across unrelated cases.