Madhya Pradesh HC Directs DGP To Register Offence Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Against IO & SHO For Manipulating Records Of Case Diary

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to register an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the Investigating Officer (IO) and Station House Officer (SHO) for manipulating the records of case diary.

The Court issued directions in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking some reliefs.

A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia ordered, “Accordingly, the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to register an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the then Investigating Officer and the then SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat. … The Director General of Police is also directed to verify as to whether any other person has any role to give undue advantage or not? If it is found that some more persons had given undue advantage and committed the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, then they can also be implicated in the said offence.”

The Bench said that 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 the court is left with no other option but to direct the DGP to conduct the enquiry by himself so that he can realize the malafide actions which are being done by his subordinate Police Officers, thereby jeoparding the rights of the citizens of the country.

Advocate Saurabh Kumar Sharma represented the petitioner while Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly represented the respondents.

In this case, the petition was filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus and directing the State authorities to conclude the investigation into the crime. The case showed a sorry state of affairs of the Police Department working in the District of Balaghat. On an FIR lodged by the complainant, a closure report was filed in the year 2017 and closure report was rejected by the Magistrate in the year 2017 only. Thereafter, Police did not take any action and accordingly, the petition was preferred.

The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “This Court has already come to a conclusion that 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 (this finding is not final because the Jarayam Register also contains a date that on 01.11.2014 one more closure report was filed and the outcome of the said closure report is not known). 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 and the Investigating Officer was all the time sleeping over the matter and neither the then SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat took any pains to verify about the status of pending investigation nor the CSP, Balaghat also did take any pains.”

The Court, therefore, directed the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh to conduct an enquiry into the matter and fix the responsibility of Superintendent of Police, Balaghat, Additional Superintendent of Police, Balaghat, CSP Balaghat, present SHO, Police Station Kotwali Balaghat, the then SHO, Police Station Kotwali Balaghat as well as the Investigating Officer.

“… the Investigating Officer and the then SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Balaghat have prima facie committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (since all these things happened prior to the amendment in the Prevention of Corruption Act in the year 2018, therefore, this Court has referred to the pre-amended section of Prevention of Corruption Act)”, it noted.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the investigation/enquiry shall be conducted by the DGP only and he would not delegate or assign this duty to any officer.

“This Court by order dated 12/03/2024 had directed the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat to submit his affidavit explaining the issues mentioned in the said order. … Shockingly, the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat did not take the order seriously and in his turn handed over the enquiry to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Balaghat. 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 so that he can realize the malafide actions which are being done by his subordinate Police Officers, thereby jeoparding the rights of the citizens of the country”, it said.

Accordingly, the High Court issued the necessary directions and listed the case on April 22, 2024.

Cause Title- Atul Mandlekar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Saurabh Kumar Sharma

Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly and Advocate Hemant Namdeo.

Click here to read/download the Order