Madhya Pradesh HC Raps IO, SHO For Manipulating Case Diary & Delaying Probe After Rejection Of Closure Report, Directs DGP To File Case Against Them

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has censured police officers of various ranks in Balaghat District for sitting on a case investigation for over 4 years even after the rejection of the closure report by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

“…the Investigating Officer as well as the then SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat were out and out to give undue advantage to the accused persons because first of all they took four years to file the closure report [in 2017]…Thereafter, without making any corresponding entry as required under the different provisions of Police Regulations, the documents were created by falsely showing that the investigation has been done and again the matter went in hibernation…”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur said.

The single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia also directed the Director General of Police to conduct an enquiry about whether others were involved in giving an undue advantage to the accused in the case.

It stated that if the involvement of others is found, they too can be implicated for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act along with the Investigating Officer and the then Station House Officer (Kotwali). 

As per paragraph 642 of Police Regulations, the Investigating Officer should record the proceedings in the case diary on the date when the investigation was done but it has not been done in the current case, the court inferred.

The court had also noted that the SHO & IO had prima facie committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It stated that the DGP was directed to register a case against them accordingly under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act before amendment. 

When the counsel appearing for DGP, Swapnil Ganguly, requested the court to delegate the charge of enquiry to some other high-ranking officials like the Inspector General, the court reminded the counsel about what transpired when the Superintendent of Police (Balaghat) was asked to answer the questions posed by the court on 12.03.2024.

It said that the Balaghat SP was reluctant to file the detailed reply and affixed the said responsibility on the Additional SP. Interconnecting both scenarios, the court refused the request and noted as below in the order:

“….If the Police Officers are not ready to take the orders of the Court with seriousness and if they are not ready to realize the mistakes which are being committed by their own Department, then this Court is left with no other option but to direct the Director General of Police to conduct the enquiry by himself….”.

It will be necessary for the DGP to realise the malafide actions undertaken by his subordinate Police Officers, which is jeopardising the rights of the citizens, the court underscored.

According to the court, the Investigating Officer was sleeping over the matter for the whole time and there was no meaningful supervision by the SHO (Kotwali) or the Superintendent of Police for Balaghat. The court minced no words while reprimanding the SP and Additional SP for allegedly shielding the delinquent subordinate officers who were entrusted with the case investigation. The SP had earlier submitted that the pendency of the case investigation was not intimated to him during the monthly crime control meeting.

“It is really surprising that the entire controversy revolves in three documents; Jarayam Register, Rojnamcha Sanha and Police case diary. Still, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Balaghat was not in a position to conclude the enquiry within a period of four days, whereas the entire illegalities were detected by this Court within two minutes after looking at all the three documents”, Justice Ahluwalia emphasised.

Background & Other Observations

The writ petition was filed by the original complainant Atul Mandlekar seeking a writ of mandamus directing the S.P and SHO to conclude the investigation in Crime No/131/14, registered for offences under sections 448, 452, 294, 427 and 506 of IPC, in a time bound manner. The writ also sought enquiry against the officers who violated the court's directives in Rajendra Singh Pawar v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2021) by violating Rule 634 [General Diary] of M.P Police Regulations Act.

Commenting further about the 'sorry state of affairs' in the Balaghat District's Police Department, the court pointed out that the case diary does not contain sufficient details about the further investigation carried out after the rejection of the closure report in 2017. Even as per the version of SHO, nothing further has been done other than obtaining statements of a few witnesses in 2021. The court further observed that no action has been taken for over 2.5 years even after the recording of statements.

It stated that there was nothing in the diary to show that notices were issued to the witnesses before recording their statements or they were called to the police station for that purpose.

Since the investigating officer might have relied entirely on false documents, it could be the reason why all these proceedings do not find any place in the jarayam register, Justice Ahluwalia opined.

According to Balaghat CSP, the closure report has been filed once again which is pending for consideration by the CJM. When the court asked a question regarding the case, CSP replied that he had only recently joined. About this submission, the court noted that it is really surprising that 'even after spending one year & 11 months, CSP Balaghat is of the view that he has recently joined'.

Accordingly, it has adjourned the matter for compliance by the DGP.

Advocate Saurabh Kumar Sharma appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Hemant Namdeo represented respondents 6-9.

Case Title: Atul Mandlekar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Case No: WP No. 5058 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order