Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gokaran Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.3466/2019
Gokaran Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others
Gwalior, Dated :18/07/2019
Shri Narottam Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri R.K. Soni, Government Advocate for respondents
no.1 to 3/State.
Today this case is fixed for consideration of reply dated 14/6/2019 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior.
2. This Court on 5/4/2019 had observed as under:-
"On 27.03.2019 an impression was given by the counsel for the State that the order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has already been obtained, therefore, the State counsel was directed to clarify as to on what date the order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. was passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. On 28.03.2019 three days' time was sought by the counsel for the State and accordingly the case has come up before this Court.
It is pointed out by the counsel for the State that the order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. was issued on 28.03.2019 i.e. one day after 27.03.2019. Thus, the impression which was given by the Government Advocate on 27.03.2019 that an order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has already been passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction was false. However, that is not the question of concern. The question of concern before this Court was that when the order under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was passed in the month of February, 2018, then why the Investigating Officer was sleeping over the matter and why he woke up only after the order on 27.03.2019 was passed by this Court.
The Director General of Police has issued a circular dated 30.3.2019 expressing his displeasure on the inefficient efforts by the police authorities in executing the warrants of arrest and has also issued certain instructions to the Superintendent of Police to deal with the situation. Accordingly, in the light of the circular issued by the Director General of Police, this Court directed the Government 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3466/2019 Gokaran Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others Advocate to keep the Superintendent of Police, CSP of the concerning area, Town Inspector of the concerning police station as well as the Investigating Officer present before this Court at 2.30 pm. At 2.30 all the officers have appeared. In the presence of the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, the Investigating Officer was asked to read out from the diary about the details of the efforts made by the police authorities in tracing out the absconding accused persons.
After going through the case diary, it was pointed out by the Investigating Officer that in the month of July, 2017 the accused persons were searched in Birla Nagar area. In the month of August, 2017 again a search was made. In the month of September 2017 a prayer was made to the concerning Court and accordingly the arrest warrants were got issued against the absconding accused persons. Thereafter, in the month of November, 2017 absconsion memo was prepared as the accused persons were not found in Hazira and surrounding areas of Birla Nagar. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2018 an application under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. was filed and accordingly an order under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. In the month of April 2018 when the Investigating Officer made a prayer for an order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C., then he was directed by the Court of competent jurisdiction to comply the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. in a more effective manner and accordingly they were directed to publish the notice in the newspapers. Thereafter, admittedly, the case diary was never opened even for a single day.
It is submitted by the Investigating Officer that although he was transferred to the concerning police station in the month of August, 2018 but he has been handed over the investigation of this case on 3.1.2019. Thus, so far as the non- action on the part of the Investigating Officer is concerned, he cannot be saddled with the liability for the non-action of his predecessor. It is submitted by the Investigating Officer When the Investigating Officer was asked to inform this Court about the steps taken by him either for searching the accused persons or for obtaining an order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C., then it is submitted by the Investigating Officer that he has got a news published in the daily newspaper known as Sudarshan Express published from Gwalior. Although, he 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3466/2019 Gokaran Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others admitted that this paper has no good circulation in the city of Gwalior and he admitted that this news was published on
3.1.2019 itself.
Be that whatever it may be.
It is submitted by the Investigating Officer that after 3.1.2019 he did not take any action but submitted that because one of his family member is seriously ill and therefore he was on leave for a period of one month and again joined his duties in the later part of February, 2019. However, he fairly conceded that the return was filed on 23.03.2019 and atleast on 23.03.2019 he was aware of the fact that no order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been obtained so far but still he did not take any action in that regard and he woke up only after the order dated 27.03.2019 was passed by this Court when the State authorities were directed to file the copy of the order passed under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. because on 27.03.2019 an attempt was made to mislead the Court by giving an impression that the order Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has already been issued.
The Director General of Police has issued the following circular dated 30.03.2019 which is reproduced below:-
**iqfyl eq[;ky; ¼vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx½ Hkksiky ¼e0iz0½ Øa-@vvfo@fof/k@1@fofo/k@42@19@607@19 fnukad 30-03-2019 izfr] 1- ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd@m-e-fu-
ftyk Hkksiky@bUnkSj 2- leLr iqfyl v/kh{kd e-iz-
3- leLr jsy iqfyl v/kh{kd e-iz-
fo"k;%& eku- mPp U;k;ky; ls izkIr [email protected] dh rkehyh lqfuf'pr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa A &&& foxr dqN fnuksa esa ;g ns[kus esa vk;k gS fd eku- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk dqN izdj.kksa esa muds [email protected] dh rkehyh ugha gksus ds dkj.k iqfyl egkfuns'kd e-iz- dk 'kiFk i= ek¡xk tk jgk gSA ;g fLFkfr dnkih Bhd ugha gSA bls iqfyl egkfuns'kd }kjk xaHkhjrk ls fy;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr Hkfo"; esa fufeZr u gks blfy, fuEu funsZ'k tkjh fd, tkrs gS %& 1- eku- mPp U;k;ky; ls ftrus Hkh [email protected] rkehyh ds fy, izkIr gq, gSa] mudh rkehyh izzkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij lqfuf'pr djk,sa vkSj iqfyl v/kh{kd Lo;a fnu&izfrfnu rkehyh dh leh{kk dj ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks voxr djkrs jgsaA 2- tc uksfVl dh rkehyh ds fy, tkrs gSa vkSj ;fn okj.Vh ugha feyrk gS rks ml lanHkZ esa tks irkjlh ds iz;kl fd, x, gSa] mldk foLr`r fooj.k irkjlh ds le; gh cuk;k tkos rFkk mldk fjdkMZ mfpr izdkj ls j[kk tk,sA ftls vko';drkuqlkj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tk ldsA 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3466/2019 Gokaran Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others 3- okj.Vh dh ,d vke lwpuk laca/kh isEiysV e; bZuke ?kks"k.kk ds ,oa ftlesa okjaVh ds laca/k esa leLr fooj.k dk mYys[k djrs gq, isEiysV dks lkoZtfud LFkkuksa tSls&cl LVs.M] jsYos] LVs'ku] U;k;ky; ifjlj vkfn LFkkuksa esa pLik djk,s tkosaA budk Hkh fjdkMZ j[kk tk;sA ftu Qjkj okj.Vh ij bZuke ? kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS] mUgsa xtV esa izdkf'kr djok;k tk;sA 4- vxj fdlh dsl esa iqfyl egkfuns'kd egksn; ds 'kiFk i= dh vko';drk iM+rh gS rks 'kiFk i= ljdkjh odhy ds ek/;e ls ¼vaxzsth esa½ cuok;k tkos rFkk mldh osfVax iqfyl v/kh{kd Lo;a djasxsA 5- mijksDr funsZ'kksa dk dM+kbZ ls ikyu u fd, tkus dh fLFkfr esa mDr rF; iqfyl egkfuns'kd e-iz- ds laKku esa yk;k tkosxk o =qfVdrkZ vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok iqfLrdk esa Hkh mDr rF; dk banzkt fd;k tkosxkA 6- tks vf/kdkjh rkehyh esa ykijokgh djrsa gS mldk mRrjnkf;Ro fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk;s ,oa muds f[kykQ vko';drkuqlkj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh Hkh dh tkosA vfrfjDr iqfyl egkfuns'kd] v-v-fo-] iq-eq- Hkksiky izfrfyfi%& lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq & 1- vfr- iqfyl egkfuns'kd ¼jsy½ e-iz-
2- vfr- iqfyl egkfuns'kd bUnkSj tksu bUnkSj 3- leLr tksuy iqfyl egkfujh{kd e-iz-
4- leLr jsat mi iqfyl egkfujh{kd e-iz-
vfrfjDr iqfyl egkfuns'kd] v-v-fo-] iq-eq- Hkksiky** Thus, it is clear that the head of the M.P. Police Department is really serious about the non-execution of warrants by the police authorities and he has taken the same with all seriousness and also issued instructions to the Superintendent of Police for compliance of the circular under the hope and belief that the instructions given in the circular would be followed in its letter and spirit.
It is submitted by Shri Navneet Bhasin, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior that he would take action against the erring police officers in the light of the circular dated 30.3.2019 issued by the Director General of Police. With the hope and belief that the circular dated 30.3.2019 shall be followed by the officers of the district, the case is adjourned for a period of one month.
List this case on 6.5.2019. On the said date the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior shall file a detailed report about the steps taken by the police authorities in compliance of the order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and he would also submit in detail about the steps taken by him against the erring police officers in 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3466/2019 Gokaran Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others compliance of the circular dated 30.03.2019.
Call this case on 6.5.2019."
3. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior has submitted his reply by mentioning that S.S. Jadon, the then CSP Division Gwalior, Hemant Kumar Tiwari, the then CSP Division Gwalior, Inspector K.K. Singh, Inspector Umesh Mishra, Inspector Santosh Yadav, Inspector M.M. Malviya, Sub Inspector S.S. Parmar and Inspector K.P. Singh Yadav have been saddled with the punishment of fine of Rs.1,000/-. Since the Superintendent of Police Gwalior has admitted that the conduct of the police officers was not in accordance with their duty, therefore, the above-mentioned punishment was awarded.
However, this Court was inclined to find out that whether the conduct of the police officers to the extent of screening the offenders or not making any effort, whatsoever, to arrest the accused persons after having come to the conclusion that they have committed the offence and not filing the charge-sheet as per the provisions of Section 173 (1) of Cr.P.C., amounts to dereliction of duties or not? The Superintendent of Police, Gwalior by his reply dated 14/6/2019 has submitted that the misconduct of the police officers amounts to dereliction of 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3466/2019 Gokaran Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others duties. However, it appears that a minor punishment of fine of Rs.1,000/- has been imposed. Thus, it is clear that according to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, Gwalior, the act of protecting the accused persons appears to be casual and routine misconduct on the part of the police officers, whereas this Court by a detailed order dated 5/4/2019 had already pointed out that the police officers were deliberately sleeping over the matter even after coming to the conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offence and the charge-sheet is liable to be filed, but by not arresting the accused persons, they were avoiding to file the charge-sheet. It appears that when this Court had taken serious note of the matter by its order dated 5/4/2019, then the accused persons were immediately arrested. Thus, it is clear that till the personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior was not directed by this Court, the police officers / investigating officers were deliberately sleeping over the matter although this petition was pending since February, 2019.
4. Thus, let an affidavit be filed by the Director General of Police, State of M.P., Bhopal pointing out that whether the 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.3466/2019 Gokaran Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others dereliction of duty to the extent of deliberately screening the offenders or protecting the offenders, or negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer in not arresting the accused persons even after coming to a conclusion that they have committed an offence and the charge-sheet is to be filed, is considered to be a casual misconduct on the part of the police authorities or it is a serious matter requiring departmental enquiry.
5. Let the affidavit by the Director General of Police, State of M.P., Bhopal be filed within a period of fifteen days from today.
6. A typed copy of this order be supplied to the Government Advocate for handing over the same to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, Gwalior for communication of the same to the Director General of Police, State of M.P., Bhopal.
7. List the matter on 8/8/2019.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2019.07.19 16:37:20 +05'30'