Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramu @ Manvendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
1 M.Cr.C. No. 4578 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4578 of 2025
RAMU @ MANVENDRA SINGH GURJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Ankur Mody- Additional Advocate General for respondents/State
and Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP, Datia.
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra- Advocate for respondent No.2/Shri Yatendra
Singh Bhadoriya, the then SHO, P.S. Deepar, District Datia.
Shri Pratip Visoriya- Advocate for complainant.
Reserved on: 04.04.2025
Pronounced on :16.04.2025
__________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against
order dated 18.09.2024 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha,
District Datia (M.P.) in ST No.2/2018, by which an application filed by
applicant under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. for production of record was rejected
on the ground that Police, in spite of order dated 07.09.2018, has failed to get
the record preserved and in absence of record, no direction can be given to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
the Police to produce the record pertaining to the CDR and mobile locations
of multiple mobile numbers and SIM numbers, as mentioned in the order
dated 7/9/2018.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present application, in short, are that
applicant is facing trial for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307,
336 and 302 of IPC for committing murder of Kailash and making an attempt
to cause murder of complainant. An application was filed by applicant on
13.08.2018 on the ground that according to the prosecution case the incident
is alleged to have taken place on 24.09.2017 at about 3-4 pm, whereas at that
time deceased and injured were in Amayan, District Bhind (M.P.) but the
Investigating Officer, by suppressing the material fact, has shown that the
incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Deepar,
District Datia (M.P.) and accordingly, it was prayed that call details and
mobile locations of (i) Sim No.8991787115031 6357829H5 and SIM
No.89917867075799256; (ii) Mobile No.9977033721; (iii) Mobile
No.8120139823; (iv) Mobile No.9009713629; (v) Mobile Nos.9516372435
and 9754312246; (vi) Mobile No.9516717908; (vii) Mobile No.9754681363
(viii) Mobile No.9977935931 (ix) Mobile No.9977178454 and (x) Mobile
No.9009715901 may be preserved to show that the injured and witnesses
were not present at the place where the incident is alleged to have taken
place. Accordingly, the Trial Court by order dated 07.09.2018 directed that
the call details and mobile location of aforesaid mobile numbers and SIM
numbers be preserved. It was also observed that this order would not give
rise to any vested right in favour of accused persons and the use of aforesaid
call details shall be subject to order passed by the Trial Court and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
aforesaid data shall not be shared with the applicant or any other person
without the leave of the Court. Thereafter, the case was fixed for framing of
charges. Later, it appears that another application was filed on 20.09.2018 for
production of compliance report of order dated 07.09.2018. A reply was
submitted by SHO, Police Station Deepar, District Datia on 01.10.2018 that
in compliance of order dated 07.09.2018, action has been taken for
preserving the call details and in the light of aforesaid reply, the Trial Court
by order dated 04.10.2018 disposed of the application filed by applicant. It
appears that thereafter, the evidence of witnesses were recorded and later on
an application was filed under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. for production of call
details and locations of mobile numbers and SIM numbers which were
directed to be preserved by the Trial Court by order dated 07.09.2018. In
reply to the said application, it was submitted by the Police that letter dated
08.09.2018 was sent to the Cyber Cell for preserving the aforesaid record.
Thereafter, information was sought from Cyber Cell, Datia, which has
informed that since the CDRs of mobile numbers and SIM numbers are more
than two years' old, therefore, the same cannot be provided and accordingly,
it was observed by the Trial Court that since the SHO has opined that the
information sought to be produced under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. is older than
two years, therefore, the same cannot be produced and accordingly,
application submitted by applicant before the Trial Court was rejected.
3. Challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, it is submitted by
counsel for applicant that incident is alleged to have taken place on
24.09.2017 and on 13.08.2018 application was filed for directing the
Investigating Agency to preserve the call records and accordingly by order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
dated 07.09.2018 direction was given. Later on, on 20/9/2018, when
applicant filed an application for calling the compliance report of order dated
7/9/2018, then on 01.10.2018 a reply was given by the Investigating Agency
that action has been taken for preservation of the aforesaid record and
accordingly the aforesaid application filed by applicant was disposed of by
order dated 04.10.2018. The direction to preserve the call details and details
of location of mobile numbers and sim numbers was issued within a period
of two years. Although the police had assured the Court that action has been
taken for preserving the aforesaid record, but deliberately did not take any
action thereafter and now, the rejection of application under Section 233 of
Cr.P.C. on the basis of statement made by SHO, Police Station Deepar,
District Datia (M.P.) that as the wanted information is older by more than
two years therefore it cannot be produced, is erroneous and therefore, the
Trial Court should have initiated proceedings under the Contempt of Court
Act and should have observed that since the prosecution has failed to produce
the record in spite of directions given to preserve the same, therefore, an
adverse inference will be drawn against witnesses with regard to their
presence on spot.
4. Counsel for complainant submitted that it is a clear case where
prosecution agency is out and out protecting the interests of accused and in
spite of clear order dated 07.09.2018 has failed to produce the call details
and mobile locations of mobile numbers and SIM numbers as already
mentioned above. Therefore, it is clear that the then SHO, Police Station
Deepar, District Datia and the then Superintendent of Police, Datia are guilty
of dereliction of their duty as they have deliberately not filed the record of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
mobile numbers and SIM numbers mentioned above and therefore, it is
submitted that serious action should be taken against the then SHO, Police
Station Deepar, District Datia and the then Superintendent of Police, District
Datia. It is further submitted that the then S.P., Datia and the then SHO,
Police Station, Deepar, District Datia have deliberately created a situation,
where the accused may pray for drawing an adverse inference with regard to
presence of witnesses on the spot.
5. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the then Superintendent of
Police, Datia that on 8/9/2018, the then SHO, Police Station, Deepar, District
Datia sent a letter to the then Superintendent of Police, Datia who forwarded
it to Cyber Cell for preserving the record. Thereafter, the then Superintendent
of Police, Datia was transferred out of District Datia on 08.02.2019 and now
he has no direct access or authority. However, in order to ensure the
compliance of order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court as well as of
this Court, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia requested the present
Superintendent of Police, Datia to retrieve the data from State Crime Records
Bureau (SCRB) Server because all the crime related data of the State and all
the official Zimbra E-mail I.Ds. of all District Cyber Cells and supervisory
officers is maintained and preserved by the SCRB and E-mail storage of all
the E-mails to and from district official E-mail IDs are preserved by SCRB.
Accordingly, the present Superintendent of Police, wrote a letter on
25.03.2025 for restoration of data of September, 2018 from official E-mail
ID of Cyber Cell, Datia. All the E-mails sent and received from official E-
mail ID of Cyber Cell, Datia have been retrieved from the SCRB server and
now it is available on the official E-mail ID of Cyber Cell, Datia. By letter
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
dated 29.03.2025, present Superintendent of Police, Datia, gave point-wise
response to the request made by the then Superintendent of Police, Datia for
retrieval of data and it has been informed that the data which was directed to
be preserved by the Trial Court by order dated 07.09.2018 has been retrieved
and it shall be made available to the Court and now the data is in possession
of present Superintendent of Police, Datia.
It is submitted that in compliance of the directions given by the Trial
Court on 07.09.2018, the then SHO, Police Station Deepar, District Datia
wrote a letter on 08.09.2018 to the then Superintendent of Police, Datia
which was delivered to Cyber Unit, District Datia. The said letter was
received by Cyber Unit, Datia on 09.09.2018 which was recorded by the
Cyber Cell in the CDR requisition register. Upon receipt of letter from SHO
Deepar by Cyber Cell, details of numbers and E-mail Ids were sent to
concerned Telecom Service Provider on 09.09.2018. A reminder was also
sent on 12.09.2018 and a second reminder was sent on 16.09.2018 along with
copy of order of trial Court dated 07.09.2018. The communications were also
made from the official E-mail ID of the then Superintendent of Police, Datia.
CDRs and required information about all ten mobile numbers
mentioned in the court order were provided by the Service Provider on
the official E-mail ID of Superintendent of Police, Datia on 17.09.2018.
6. It is submitted that since the then Superintendent of Police, Datia
(M.P.), Shri Mayank Awasthi was transferred from Datia on 08.02.2019
whereas while deciding the application filed under Section 233 of Cr.P.C, the
Trial Court had sought production of aforesaid record by order dated
16.07.2024, therefore, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia had no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
authority and information to produce the record which was already received
by him on his official E-mail ID on 17.09.2018. It is submitted that in fact the
SHO Deepar District Datia has wrongly stated before the Trial Court that the
record which was directed to be preserved was not received and for the said
misstatement, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia, namely, Shri Mayank
Awasthis not responsible.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. By order dated 03.03.2025, this Court had passed the following order:
"Shri Jitendra Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Padamshree Agarwal- PL for respondents/State.
Counsel for the State requests for grant of time to seek
instructions from SHO of Police Station Dipar, District Date with
regard to proceedings undertaken by them in compliance with the
order dated 7/9/2018 (Annexure P/3).
Let SHO, Police Station Dipar remain present alongwith the
relevant communications sent for preservation of call detail record in
compliance with order dated 7/9/2018.
List the matter in the week commencing 17th March, 2025."
9. Thereafter, by order dated 20.03.2025, the following order was passed
by this Court:
"Shri Atul Gupta - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General and Shri
Yogesh Parashar - Public Prosecutor for State.
This Court by order dated 03.03.2025 had directed the SHO
Police Station Dipar, District Datia to inform this Court about the
steps undertaken by the then SHO for compliance of order dated
07.09.2018.
2. In compliance of said order, Shri Amar Singh Gurjar, SHO
Police Station Dipar District Datia is present in person.
3. By order dated 07.09.2018, the Trial Court had directed the
police to protect certain digital record. It is submitted by Shri Gurjar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
that in compliance of order dated 07.09.2018, a letter was sent by the
then SHO Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadouriya to the then
Superintendent of Police Shri Mayank Awasthi for protection of
digital record. Shri Mayank Awasthi the then Superintendent of
Police in his turn forwarded a letter to cyber cell Datia. It is
submitted that police woke up only in the year 2024 when
compliance report was sought by Trial Court. Thus, it is submitted
by Shri Gurjar that after writing a letter on 08.09.2018, nothing was
done by police to preserve the digital record which was directed to be
preserved by Trial Court by order dated 07.09.2018.
4. It appears that an application under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.
was filed by the accused for production of the said data alongwith
certificate under Section 65- B of Evidence Act. In reply thereto,
statement was made by State that record could not be collected and
since record has been destroyed after two years, therefore, record
cannot be produced and in the light of aforesaid statement, Trial
Court has rejected the application filed under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.
5. The moot question for consideration as to whether the data
which was sought to be preserved by accused persons is of any
importance or not?
6. It is the case of applicant that witnesses, who have been
relied upon by the prosecution, were not present on the spot. Once
Trial Court by order dated 07.09.2018 had directed the police
authority to preserve data which is mentioned in the said order, then
it was boundant duty of the then Superintendent of Police as well as
SHO Police Station Dipar District Datia to ensure that said data is
preserved. Furthermore, it appears that police was aware of the fact
that order dated 07.09.2018 has been passed, therefore, they are
required to preserve the data. On 04.10.2018 a statement was made
by Public Prosecutor that steps have been taken to preserve the data,
therefore, at least on 04.10.2018 Superintendent of Police Datia as
well as the then SHO, Police Station Dipar District Datia were
reminded of the fact that data is to be preserved and therefore, they
should have checked their record and in spite of the fact that no
information was received from cyber cell, still sat very conveniently
on the matter and did not ensure the compliance of order dated
07.09.2018.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
7. Now, the only question for consideration is that what action
should be taken against the then Superintendent of Police, Datia-
Shri Mayank Awasthi and Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadouriya the then
SHO Police Station Dipar District Datia?
8. Accordingly, Shri Yogesh Parashar, Public Prosecutor was
requested to call Shri Ankur Modi, Additional Advocate General for
assistance to this Court.
9. It is submitted by Shri Ankur Modi that it has been verified
from the concerning telecom companies and now they have also
expressed their inability to retrieve the digital record and thus, it is
submitted that record which was directed to be preserved cannot be
produced now.
10. Accordingly, this Court sought the suggestion from Shri
Modi with regard to the steps which should be taken against the
erring police officers. However, Shri Modi left it to the discretion of
the Court.
11. Accordingly, issue notices to Shri Mayank Awasthi the
then Superintendent of Police, Datia who according to Shri Gurjar is
posted as DIG PHQ and Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadouriya the then
SHO Police Station Dipar District Datia who according to Shri
Gurjar is posted as Junior Sub-Inspector at Police Station Civil
Lines, Datia.
12. It is directed that in order to avoid any further delay,
notices to both the officers shall be served through the Director
General of Police. Shri Ankur Mody shall also send a copy of this
order to DGP for necessary compliance.
13. The officers are directed to file their response on the
following issues:-
(i) Why a departmental enquiry should not be directed to
be initiated against them for violating the order dated 07.09.2018
by not taking any steps to protect the digital record.
(ii) Why this Court should not draw an inference that non-
action on the part of officers was with deliberate intention to
hide illegality in their investigation.
(iii) How much compensation has to be paid to the accused
persons for violation of their fundamental rights because right to
free and fair investigation as well as free and fair trial is the
fundamental right of an accused and now police authorities have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
expressed that they are not in a position to produce the record
which was directed to be preserved by order dated 07.09.2018.
(iv) Why a direction should not be issued to the Trial
Court to make a reference for contempt of court for violating the
order dated 07.09.2018.
14. The "aforesaid questions are not exhaustive in nature,
therefore, this Court may also seek further explanation on any other
issue which may crop up at the time of hearing.
15. It is submitted by Shri Atul Gupta that trial is at the stage
of final arguments. Since an important question of law has arisen,
therefore, Trial Court is directed not to hear the case finally till next
date of listing.
16. Notices are made returnable within a period of two weeks.
17. List this case on 04.04.2025."
10. In response to the order dated 20.03.2025, the then Superintendent of
Police, Datia, namely, Shri Mayank Awasthi, District Datia and the then
SHO, Police Station Deepar, District Datia, namely, Shri Yatendra Singh
Bhadoriya have filed their response. The response filed by Shri Mayank
Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia, has already been
reproduced in detail. From his response, it is clear that he had already
received the call details and the location of mobile phones on his official E-
mail ID on 17.09.2018, but he deliberately did not disclose it to anybody,
even to the Court. When an application was filed by applicant for compliance
of order dated 7/9/2018, then on 01.10.2018, the then SHO Police Station
Deepar, District Datia had informed the Court that action has been taken for
preserving the call details whereas call details and mobile locations of mobile
numbers and SIM numbers were already received by Shri Mayank Awasthi,
the then Superintendent of Police, Datia on his official E-mail I.D. on
17.09.2018. Therefore, it is clear that on 01.10.2018, Shri Mayank Awasthi,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
the then Superintendent of Police, Datia, deliberately suppressed the call
details and details of locations of mobile numbers and SIM numbers from the
Court which were already directed by the Court to be preserved. Thus, Shri
Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia has played fraud
on the Court by getting a wrong reply filed on 01.10.2018 that action has
been taken for preserving the call details and locations of mobile numbers
and SIM numbers but deliberately did not disclose that the aforesaid
information has already been received and deliberately did not produce the
same before the Trial Court in spite of application filed by applicant.
11. So far as the stand of Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya, the then SHO,
Police Station Deepar, District Datia (M.P.) is concerned, it is his case that
the order to preserve the call details and mobile locations was passed on
07.09.2018 and accordingly he wrote a letter to the then Superintendent of
Police, Datia for preserving the aforesaid record on 08.09.2018. Thereafter,
on 01.10.2018, a reply was filed before the Trial Court which reads as under:
dk;kZy; iqfyl Fkkuk Mhikj ftyk nfr;k ¼e0iz0½
Fkkuk@Mhikj@1044@2018 nukad&01@10@2018
izfr]
ekuuh; vij lrz U;k;k/kh'k egksn;]
U;k;ky; lsao<k ftyk nfr;k ¼e0iz0½
fo"k; & dkWy fMVsy lqjf{kr fd;s tkus gsrq vko';d dk;Zokgh ckcrA
lanHkZ & Jhekuth ds irz dzekad@556@18 lsao<k fnukad 07-09-18 ds ikyu
esa A
egksn;]
mijksä fo"k;kuZ~rxr lanf'kZr i= dk voyksdu djus ij d"Vs djs ftlds
ek/;e ls Fkkuk Mhikj ds vi-d-73@17 /kkjk 341] 147] 148] 149] 294] 336]
325]307]302 Hkk-n-fo-ls mnHkwr l= çdj.k dekad 2@2018 'kklu cuke
ekuosUæ mQZ jkew vkfn esa ¼1½ ?kVukLFky ls tkr eksokbZy bVsDlu daiuh dk
ftlesa nks fles vkbfM;k dh yxh gS fle u-& 89917871150316357829 fle
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
ua-2&89917867075799256 ¼2½ M.L.C ds fy, iqfyl dks Hksth x;h lwpuk i=
esa Qfj;knh dk vafdr vkbfM;k da- dk eksckby ua- 9977033721 ¼3½ e`R;q tk¡p
esa Øekad&1 esa ntZ vfjneu dk eks-Ø-8120139820 ¼4½ Qfj;knh dqynhi dk
eks-ua- 9009713629 ¼5½ e`rd dSyk'k dk eks- ua- 9516372435 ,oa 9754312246
¼6½ vksedkj eksck- ua- 9516717908 ¼7½ /kzqo dk eksck-ua- 9754681363 ¼8½ vkjksih
tud flag dk eksckby ua- 9977935931 ¼9½ iku flag dk eksokby ua-
9977178454 ¼10½ ijeky dk eksckby ua- 9009715901 dh d‚y fMVsy dh
tkudkjh fofHkUu lfoZl çksokbMjksa ls izkIr dj lqjf{kr djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k
x;k gSA
i= Øekad Øekad@556@18 lsao<k fnukad 07-09-18 ds funsZ'ku esa i= esa
n'kkZ;s uacjksa dh lh-Mh-vkj- fnukad 24-09-17 ds iwoZorhZ ,oa iFkkrorhZ vof/k dh
fofHkUu lapkj daifu;ksa ls çkIr djus ckcr i= Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;
nfr;k ds ek/;e ls lk;cj lsy nfr;k dks i= Øekad@Fkkuk Mhikj@988@18
fnukad 08-09-18 dks Hkstk x;k gS ftldh çkfIr Nk;kçfr layXu gSA
vr% Jhekuth dh vkSj ikyu çfrosnu lknj çsf"kr gSA
layXu& Jheku iq0v0 egksn; nfr;k dks
fy[ks irz dh Nk;kizfr &02 lgh@&
Fkkuk izHkkjh
Fkkuk Mhikj ftyk nfr;k
On 17.11.2018, he was transferred from Police Station Deepar and was sent
to Police Lines Datia and, accordingly, he recorded his departure in
Roznamcha Sanha dated 17.11.2018. It is submitted that since the then SP
Datia did not provide him the records of call details and mobile locations and
also did not inform that the said information has already been received by
him on his official E-mail ID, therefore, he was not aware of the aforesaid
fact and lateron once he was transferred from Police Station Deepar, District
Datia, he lost all his jurisdiction and control over the matter and therefore,
there is no error on his part and he has not suppressed any fact.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
13. The arguments advanced by counsel for applicant as well as
complainant have already been reproduced. Counsel for applicant has alleged
mala fides against the prosecution agency in not producing the record on the
allegations that in fact they wanted to spoil the defence of applicants that the
witnesses were not present on the spot, whereas it is the allegation of counsel
for complainant that by not preserving the records of call details and mobile
locations of different mobile numbers and SIM numbers as mentioned in the
order dated 07.09.2018, respondents are trying to give an opportunity to
accused persons to raise an argument to draw an adverse inference, whereas
now it is the case of Police that the then Superintendent of Police, Datia had
already received the entire record on his official E-mail ID on 17.09.2018,
now which is in the possession of present SP Datia and according to the stand
taken by Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP Datia, the same shall be filed
before the Court.
14. It is really a shocking state of affairs where the Police has not risen
upto the minimum level of duties expected from them. As already pointed
out, Trial Court by order dated 07.09.2018 had directed the investigating
agency to preserve the call details and locations of mobile numbers and SIM
numbers as already mentioned in the earlier part of this order as well as in the
order dated 07.09.2018. The entire details were already received by Shri
Mayank Awasthi on his official E-mail ID on 17.09.2018. Thereafter, an
application was also filed by accused for compliance of order dated 7/9/2018
but a false reply was submitted before the Trial Court that efforts are being
made to preserve the record and when application under Section 233 of
Cr.P.C. was filed, then a false stand was taken by the investigating agency
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
that call details and locations of mobile numbers and SIM numbers could not
be preserved and now they cannot be produced and accordingly, the stand
taken by Police was accepted by the Trial Court.
15. Before considering the conduct of Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then
Superintendent of Police, Datia and Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya, the then
SHO, Police Station Deepar as well as the present SHO, Police Station
Deepar, District Datia, this Court would like to consider the conduct of the
Trial Court.
16. The Trial Court was well aware of the fact that by order dated
07.09.2018 direction was given to preserve the call details and locations of
mobile numbers and SIM numbers. Thereafter, an application was filed for
seeking compliance report of the aforesaid order and by order dated
04.10.2018 stand was taken by police that proceedings have been initiated for
preserving the record and the same was accepted by the Trial Court. Under
these circumstances, the Police was under an obligation to either produce the
record or explain as to who is responsible for not complying the order dated
07.09.2018. Unfortunately, the Trial Court did not rise to the occasion and in
a most casual manner permitted the Police to say that in spite of direction
given by Trial Court on 07.09.2018, they have failed to preserve the record
and exonerated them from all their liabilities. The Trial Court must realize
that the trial is conducted to find out the truth by giving an opportunity of
hearing to all the contesting parties i.e. accused and complainant. It is always
expected from the prosecution that it shall produce all the documents before
the Trial Court so that the Trial Court may reach to a correct conclusion.
Suppression of documents for any good or bad reason is detrimental to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
justice dispensation system and when the suppression is conscious and in
spite of order passed by the Court, then it becomes more serious not only for
justice dispensation system but it also amounts to contempt of lawful
authority of the Court.
17. Under these circumstances, the minimum which the Trial Court should
have done was to send a reference for initiating the proceedings for Contempt
of Court but unfortunately the Trial Court has failed in discharging its duty
and has allowed the investigating agency to go scot-free for the negligence
shown by them towards their duties as well as contemptuous act towards the
order of the Court. Under these circumstances, instead of saying anything
more against the conduct of Trial Judge, it is directed that the Trial Judge
shall initiate proceedings for Contempt of Court against Shri Mayank
Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia.
Conduct of Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of
Police, Datia (M.P.):
18. As already pointed out, on 07.09.2018, the Trial Court had directed for
preservation of mobile locations and call details of mobile numbers and SIM
numbers mentioned in the order. It is clear from the reply filed by Shri
Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia that he had
already received the call details and mobile locations of aforementioned
mobile numbers and SIM numbers on his official E-mail ID on 17.09.2018,
but the affidavit which he has filed in response to order dated 20.03.2025 is
completely silent as to why he did not forward the aforesaid information to
the concerning Police Station or why he did not inform the then SHO, Police
Station Deepar, District Datia with regard to receipt of call details as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
locations of various mobile numbers and SIM numbers as mentioned in order
dated 07.09.2018. Thus, it is clear that Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP
Datia had deliberately suppressed and withheld the information which was
directed to be preserved by the Trial Court by order dated 07.09.2018. Since
Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia could not
give any explanation for not forwarding the said information to the
concerning police station or for not sending a letter to the concerning Police
Station with regard to receipt of information on his official E-mail ID, it is
clear that in absence of any bona fides on the part of Shri Mayank Awasthi,
the then SP Datia, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him that
either the information was withheld by him to facilitate the accused persons
to pray for an adverse inference against the prosecution agency with regard to
presence of their witnesses on the spot or to facilitate the complainant by
hiding actual location of mobile numbers of various witnesses and the
deceased. Be that whatever it may be. In absence of detailed enquiry in this
regard, this Court is unable to hold as to whether the intentions of Shri
Mayank Awasthi, the then SP., Datia was to facilitate the accused persons or
to facilitate the complainant party. But one thing is clear that whatever the
intention of Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP. Datia may be but he was
acting with mala fide intention to facilitate one of the contesting parties. It is
really shocking that on one hand one family has already lost one of his family
member and on the other hand accused persons are facing trial for an offence
for which capital punishment is the maximum sentence. Therefore, one
person has already lost his life and accused persons are facing a situation
where they can be awarded life sentence or even capital punishment and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
therefore, it is clear that lives of several persons including their family
members is at stake and Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP Datia was
involved in his mala fide action to show undue favour to one party. This
Court by order dated 20.03.2025 had already called a response from the
erring officers as to why compensation may not be directed to be paid for not
producing the record, but in the light of arguments advanced by counsel for
complainant it is clear that Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP., Datia has
tried to violate the fundamental rights of free and fair investigation as well as
free and fair trial of atleast one of the parties. Therefore, Shri Mayank
Awasthi, the then SP, Datia is directed to deposit an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) by way of compensation before
the Principal Registrar of this Court within one month from today,
failing which the Principal Registrar shall not only initiate proceedings
for recovery of the compensation amount but shall also register a
separate case for Contempt of Court. If the amount is deposited, then the
Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to forward the said amount to the
Trial Court. The Trial Court shall disburse the amount to the successful party
i.e. in case if the accused persons are convicted then to the complainant party
and in case if the accused persons are acquitted then to the accused party.
19. It is not out of place to mention here that Shri Mayank Awasthi has not
shown disrespect to the law of land for the first time. In fact, he is habitual of
doing the same. Earlier, when he was posted as Superintendent of Police,
Datia, a Crime No.75/2017 was registered at Police Station Godan Distt.
Datia for offence under Sections 307, 294, 34 of I.P.C.. On the request made
by accused persons, Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
Datia directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Datia to conduct a
parallel enquiry and after obtaining the report from the then Additional
Superintendent of Police, Shri Surendra Singh Gaur, also provided a copy of
enquiry report to a local MLA and accordingly, after taking note of conduct
of Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, and Additional
Superintendent of Police, Datia the following order was passed by this Court
in the case of Deepak alias Preetam Verma and Anr. Vs. State of MP &
Anr. decided on 11.09.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.12592/2018:
"Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi, counsel for the applicants
Shri B.P.S. Chouhan, Counsel for the respondent No. 1/State.
Case diary is available in M.Cr.C.No.33002/2018, which is an
application filed by co-accused Ladle Vanshkar for grant of bail and
has been decided today itself.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No.75/2017 registered at Police Station
Godan Distt. Datia for offence under Sections 307, 294, 34 of I.P.C. as
well as for quashment of all the consequent criminal proceedings.
The prosecution story in short is that the complainant lodged a report
against the applicants as well as the other co-accused persons alleging
that the applicant no.2 and Dayashanker fired a gun shot causing
injuries whereas all other accused persons were armed with weapons
and had exhorted the applicant no.2 and Dayashanker to kill the
complainant.
It is submitted that the Add. S.P. had conducted an independent
parallel enquiry and had found that the applicants have been falsely
implicated and, therefore, relying on the report of the Add. S.P., it is
prayed that the F.I.R. registered against the applicants and all other
consequential proceedings may be quashed.
Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State, that the
investigating agency has not relied upon the enquiry report submitted
by the Add. S.P., and the charge sheet has been filed against the
applicants and they are still absconding.
Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties as
well as the documents filed in support of the same.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
In the F.I.R., a specific allegation has been made against the
applicant no.2 and co-accused Dayashanker that they had fired
gunshots causing injuries.
Unfortunately, this case is a glaring example of interference by the
political leaders in the investigation and unfortunately, the
Superintendent of Police, Datia also fell pray to the pressure exerted
by the local M.L.A., and without there being any provision of law, the
Superintendent of Police has tried to please the local M.L.A. and has
reported to the M.L.A. Such type of reporting by the Superintendent
of Police in a criminal case is unknown to the criminal jurisprudence.
It is true that free and fair investigation is the cardinal principle of
criminal law, but interference by the politicians in the investigation,
and twisting the investigation at the behest of the Superintendent of
Police of a District is also really alarming. A time has come where, the
Court cannot keep its eyes closed to such type of actions of the
Superintendent of Police.
From the documents, which have been placed on record, it is clear
that a typed application was made by one Amar Singh, the close
relative of the accused persons, alleging that his son and grandson had
gone to the Court of Tahsildar, Bhander for attending a Court
proceedings and a false report has been lodged against them. It
appears that said Amar Singh, also approached local M.L.A. as a
result of which, a letter was written by Ghanshyam Pironiya, M.L.A.
to the Superintendent of Police, forwarding the letter of Amar Singh
with a direction that justice may be done to Amar Singh, by
conducting an impartial enquiry and the outcome of the said enquiry
be reported to him. The letter dated 20-9-2017, written by the local
M.L.A., which has been placed at page No.20 along with the
application is reproduced as under :-
^^fo/kk;d fn- 20@9@2017
e/;izns'k fo/kku lHkk
izfr]
iqfyl v/kh{kd
nfr;kA
fo"k;& izkFkhZ ds yMdks ds fo:) >wBh fjiksVZ djus ckorA
lanHkZ& Jh vejflg oa'kdkj fuoklh djkZ Hkk.Msj dk vkosnu
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
mijksDr fo"k;d lanfHkZr vkosnu ewy :i esa vkidh vksj
layXu izsf"kr dj fuosnu gS fd vkosnu dh fu"i{k tkWap djkdj
vkosnu dks U;k; fnykus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gS d`r dk;Zokgh ls
voxr djkus dk d"V djsA
layXUk& mijksDrkuqlkjA
Hkonh;
?ku';ke fijkSfu;k
fo/kk;d^^
It appears that in compliance of letter dated 20-9-2017, written
by the local M.L.A., the Superintendent of Police, Datia, directed the
Additional Superintendent of Police to conduct a parallel enquiry. The
letter dated 26-9-2017, written by Superintendent of Police, Datia to
the Additional S.P., Datia has been placed at page No. 19 and is
reproduced as under :-
^^fo"k;%& vkosnd@ vkosfndk vej s/o ywVsjs oa'kdkj fuoklh djkZ
lanHkZ%& fo/kk;d ek.Msj /ku';ke fijksfu;k i= fn 20&9&17 ds
rkjrE;esa
&&00&&
fo"k;kafdr f'kdk;rh vkosnu i= vkidh vksj Hkst dj ys[k
gS fd f'kdk;r i= dh tkap fuEu fcUnqvks ij dh tk dj
izfrosnu vkxkeh 07 fnol ds vUnj bl dk;kZy; dks HkstsA
1- f'kdk;r esa mYysf[kr lHkh fcUnqvks dh tkap ckjhdh ls dh tkos
rFkk dFku ,oa vU; nLrkost izfrosnu ds lkFk layXu dj HkstsA
2- tkap ds nkSjku vkosnd@vukosnd] lkf{k;ks ,oa Lora= lkf{k;ks
ds dFku fy;s tkos ,oa dFkuks ds mij Li"V :i ls mYys[k djs
fd ;g dFku vkosnd i{k@vukosnd i{k@ Lora= lk{kh dk gSA
3- 'kkfUr O;oLFkk Hkx gksus dh n'kk esa izfrca/kkRed dk;Zokgh dj
mldk mYys[k izfrosnu esa djsA
4-izfrosnu esa tkap fu"d"kZ Li"V :i ls fy[ks ,oa tkap fu"d"kZ ls
vkosnd dks voxr djk;k tkdj izfrosnu esa mldk mYys[k djsA
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
5- vkosnd uksfVl nsus ds mijkar Hkh mifLFkr ugh gksus ij mlds
fuokl ds irs ij tkdj dFku ysuk lqfu'pr djsA
6- f'kdk;r ds lacf/kr Fkkus ls vfHkys[k izkIr dj mldk mYys[k
izfrosnu esa fd;k tk;sA
7- 22 fcUnq ds izksQkZek vuqlkj izfrosnu nsuk lqfuf'pr djsA
layXu & ewy vkosnu i= ,oa vU; izi= fo/kk;d i= lfgr rhu
i`"BA
iqfyl v/kh{kd
ftyk nfr;k e0iz0^^
Thereafter, it appears that the Additional S.P., Datia, recorded
the statements of certain witnesses, but did not even care to examine
the complainant or other injured persons. Thus, the Additional S.P.,
Datia also ensure that an exparte parallel enquiry is conducted, inspite
of the fact that the investigation was already going on.
It appears that thereafter, the Additional Superintendent of
Police, Datia on the basis of ex parte parallel enquiry gave a clean chit
to the applicants and the Superintendent of Police, Datia, in its turn,
and with a sole intention of pleasing the local politician, forwarded the
copy of the enquiry report to the M.L.A. The covering letter of
forwarding the copy of the enquiry report to the M.L.A. has been
placed at serial no. 15 which is reproduced as under :-
^^fo"k;%& vkosnd vej flag iq= yVksjs oa'kdkj fu0 xzke djkZ ftyk
nfr;k ds f'kdk;rh vkosnu i= dh tkWap ds laca/k esaA
lnHkZ%& vkidk i= fnukad 20-09-2017 ds ikyu esA
&&&&&00&&&&&
d`i;k mijksDr fo"k;karxZr lnfHkZr f'kdk;rh vkosnu i=
dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djs ftlds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ ds yMdks
ds fo:) >wBh fjiksVZ djus ckor ys[k fd;k gSA mDr vkosnu i=
dh tkWp vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk nfr;k ds }kjk dh x;h
laiw.kZ tkap ls izdj.k ds dfFkr vkjksihx.k nhid]ykMys] dksd flag
dh izkRk% 11%00 cts ls lk;a 05%00 cts rd ekuuh; U;k;ky;
ts,e,Qlh Hkk.Msj o U;k;ky; uk;c rglhynkj o`r xksanu
rglhy Hkk.Msj esa ,oa vkjksih n;k'kadj dh mifLFkrh cyjke
oa'kdkj] gjn;ky oa'kdkj o ckcwyky oa'kdkj ds lkFk fnukad 07-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
09-2017 rd jkeyhyk eSnku Ik.Mky dkSap ftyk tkykSu esa ik;h
tk jgh gS mDr ?kVuk izFke n`"V;k jktdqekj lksuw vejthr pUnw
o gjfoykl uke O;fDr }kjk candks ls fd, x;s gokbZ Qk;j ls
?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ fnukad 04-09-2017 dks jktdqekj teknkj panw
dMsjk vejthr dMsjk] o deys'k dMsjk] }kjk vkosnd ds iq=
fd'kuyky dh ekjihV dh x;h Fkh ftl ij ls Fkkuk xksnu esa
izdj.k iathc) fd;k x;k gSA mDr jaft'k esa vijk/k iathc)
djkuk izrhr gSA mDr rF;ksa dks izdj.k dh foospuk esa 'kkfey dj
izdj.k dk fujkdj.k djus gsrq dk;kZy;hu i=
Ø@iqv@nfr;k@f'kts@fo/kk0@izfr@05&,@14 fnukad 30-12-
2017 ls Fkkuk izHkkjh xksnu dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA
tkWap izfronsu lknj voyksdukFkZ izsf"kr gSA
layXu%&1 ewy vkosnu i=& ,d i`"BA
2 tkWap izfrosnu dh Nk;kizfr& rhu i`"BA
3- dFku Nk;kizfr& ckjg i`"BA
4 vkns'k fn+ 12-09-17 JMFC izsf"kr
iqfyl v/kh{kd
ftyk nfr;k e0iz0
Nk;kizfr &,d i`"B ,oa Fkkuk izHkkjh xksnu dks izsf"kr fd;k tkos
Nk;kizfr& ,d i`"BA
izfrfyfi%& vkosnd vej flag iq= yVksj oa'kdkj fu0 xzke dsjksZ
ftyk nfr;k dh vksj lwpukFkZ Fkkuk izHkkjh xksanu ftyk nfr;k dks
funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS vkosfndk dks lwpuk i= rkfey djuk
lqfuf'pr djsA
iqfyl v/kh{kd
ftyk nfr;k e0iz0^^
It is really surprising that the local politicians have not been
assigned any role under any of the provisions of Criminal Procedure
Code, but in spite of that, the Superintendent of Police, Datia,not only
entertained the recommendation of the M.L.A., and directed for
parallel enquiry but thereafter, also forwarded the copy of the enquiry
report to the M.L.A., just in order to please the politicians. This act of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
the Superintendent of Police, Datia, cannot be appreciated and is
hereby deprecated.
Not only this, the Counsel for the State also could not point
out any provision in Cr.P.C., which empowers the Superintendent of
Police, to direct for an independent and parallel enquiry, specifically
when the investigating officer was already conducting the
investigation. Here, it is not out of place to mention that the
investigation was never withdrawn from the investigating officer. No
allegations of bias were ever made against the investigating officer.
Section 36 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
''36. Powers of superior officers of police.-- Police
Officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police
station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local
area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by
such officer within the limits of his station.''
The moot question for consideration in short is that whether
the enquiry report given by the Additional S.P., Datia was in
accordance with law and whether the same can be considered by the
Trial Court while deciding the trial.
The police department has issued a circular dated 25.6.2010
under the signatures of Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh
and the said circular still holds field. The circular dated 25.6.2010 has
been issued by the police department in order to ensure the
compliance of the order passed by this Court in the case of Sanjay
Singh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2006 (2) MPLJ
324. The relevant portion of the circular dated 25.6.2010 reads as
under:-
^^mijksDr funsZ'kksa esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd vkjksih@lansgh ds
vkosnu ij vijk/k dh foospuk izHkkfor ugha gksuk pkfg,A vr%
Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd%&
1& ;fn foospuk ds nkSjku bl izdkj ds vkosnu ;k f'kdk;r i=
izkIr gksrs gSa vFkok lekpkj i=ksa esa dksbZ lekpkj izdkf'kr gksrk gS
rks vkosnu ;k lekpkj tkWp mfpr ek/;e ls foospd dks Hkstdj
tkWp foospuk ds va'k ds :i esa gh djuk pkfg;s
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
Thus, it is clear that the police department itself is of the view
that during the pendency of an investigation the parallel independent
enquiry should not be conducted under any circumstance. Even
otherwise there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure
which empowers the Superintendent of Police to hold the parallel
independent enquiry during the pendency of an investigation.
Thus, it is clear that where the Director General of Police has
also issued a circular, making it crystal clear that during the pendency
of the investigation, a parallel and independent enquiry cannot be
done, but it appears that flouting the instructions of the Director
General of Police, the Superintendent of Police, Datia, had directed
the Add. S.P., Datia to conduct a parallel and independent enquiry.
Thus, the action of the Superintendent of Police is not only contrary to
the provisions of Cr.P.C., but is also contrary to the circular issued by
the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
Unfortunately, that is not the end of the matter. The
Additional S.P., submitted his report on 8-12-2017 and the
Superintendent of Police, by its letter dated 30-12-2017, directed the
S.H.O., Police Station Godan, Distt. Datia to include the enquiry
report as an evidence and to proceed and also to inform the
Superintendent of Police, within 7 days. It appears that when the
investigating officer did not agree to act upon the report of the
Additional Superintendent of Police, Datia, then the Superintendent of
Police, Datia, by letter dated 5-2-2018 forwarded the entire
documents, including the enquiry report, statements of the witnesses,
etc. to the M.L.A. Thus, it is clear that the Superintendent of Police,
Datia, was well aware of the fact that he has already directed the
S.H.O., Police Station Godan, Distt. Datia, to make the enquiry report
and other documents as part of case diary in the form of evidence.
Section 172 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :
"172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.--(1)
Every police officer making an investigation under this
Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the
investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which
the information reached him, the time at which he
began and closed his investigation, the place or places
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances
ascertained through his investigation.
1[(1-A) The statements of witnesses recorded
during the course of investigation under Section
161 shall be inserted in the case diary.
(1-B) The diary referred to in sub-section (1) shall
be a volume and duly paginated.]
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries
of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may
use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid
it in such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be
entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they
be entitled to see them merely because they are
referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the
police officer who made them to refresh his
memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose
of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of
Section 161 or Section 145, as the case may be, of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply."
Thus, it is clear that the accused is not entitled to call for such
diaries nor shall he or they be entitled to see them. However, in the
present case, not only the documents have been made available by the
Superintendent of Police, to the applicants under the Right to
Information Act, but has also provided the same to the local M.L.A.
who had recommended in favor of the applicants. Thus, it is clear that
at all stages, the Superintendent of Police, Datia was acting contrary to
the provisions of law.
Further, it is mentioned in the application that on the date of
incident, the applicant no.2 along with other persons, had attended the
Court proceedings of the Court of Tahsildar Bhander as well as the
Court of J.M.F.C., Bhander, Distt. Datia and the copy of the
ordersheets have been placed on record.
It is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the State that the
distance of Bhander from the place of incident is just about 35 Kms.
From the order-sheet of the Court of Tahsildar, it appears that
the applicants had appeared before the Court of Tahsildar, Bhander,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
Distt. Datia on 12-9-2017. If the order-sheet is considered, then it
would be clear that below the signatures of the Tahsildar, the date is
mentioned as 27-9-2017 and it was signed by the Tahsildar at 2 P.M.
as the time is also specifically mentioned. Thus, it is clear that
although the order sheet of the Court of Tahsildar, Bhander is alleged
to have been written on 12-9-2017, but from the date and time,
mentioned below the signatures of the Tahsildar, it is clear that the
said order-sheet was signed by the Tahsildar on 27-9-2017 at 2 P.M.
Thus, it is a glaring example of ante dated and ante timed order sheets
of the Court proceedings. Even otherwise, if it is presumed that the
order sheet was signed by the Tahsildar on 12-9-2017 itself, it is clear
that the said order sheet was signed at 2:00 P.M., whereas the incident
took place at 12:45 P.M. and the distance of 35 Km.s can be covered
within a period of 1:15 hours.
Similarly, the order sheet of the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhander,
Distt. Datia, has been placed on record to show that the applicant no.2
had appeared before the said Court on 12-9-2017. Since, the time of
appearance of the applicant no.2 before the said Court is not
mentioned in the ordersheet, therefore, considering the distance of
Bhander, Distt. Datia from the place of incident, it is clear that after
committing the offence, the applicant no.2 can very well go to
Bhander, Distt. Datia within a short span of less than 1 hour.
Thus, it is clear that the plea of alibi which has been raised by
the applicants cannot be accepted.
Considering the grounds raised in the application, along with
the documents which have been placed on record by the applicants, as
well as the case diary, coupled with the fact that the applicants are still
absconding and the charge sheet has been filed, by showing them as
absconding, as well as considering the political interference and the
fact that the S.P. and Additional S.P. also succumbed to the said
pressure, this Court is of the considered opinion, that this is not a fit
case for quashing the F.I.R. as well as the Criminal proceedings.
As already pointed out that the Superintendent of Police,
Datia as well as the Additional Superintendent of Police, Datia have
acted in most irresponsible manner and de hors the provisions of law,
therefore, the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, is
directed to keep a copy of this order, in their service book. The
Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal is directed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
inform the Principal Registrar of this Court within a month, about the
compliance.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the Trial
Court/Committal Court for placing the same on record.
Let a typed copy of the order be made available to Shri B.P.S.
Chouhan, the Public Prosecutor for forwarding the same to the
Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, who in its turn shall deliver the
same within 3 days from thereafter, to the Director General of Police,
Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
20. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court by Shri
Surendra Singh Gaur by filing SLP (Cri.) No.1345/2019 and by Shri Mayank
Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia by by filing SLP (Cri.)
No.8982/2018. Both the SLPs were dismissed by order dated 18.01.2022 by
passing the following order:
"Both the petitions have been preferred by the senior police
officers of the State of Madhya Pradesh assailing the observations
which has been made by the High Court under the impugned
judgment dated 11th September, 2018 while exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the
accused persons approached the High Court for quashing of the
proceedings initiated against them in reference to the FIR in Crime
No. 75/2017, registered at Police Station Godan, District Datiya, for
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 294 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
At the outset it may be noticed that the State of Madhya
Pradesh also approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 10015 of 2018 and that came to be dismissed by an
order dated 30th November, 2018.
The present petitioners have approached in their own rights to
question the observations/remarks which have been recorded by the
learned Judge in the order impugned in reference to the manner in
which an inquiry was conduced parallel to the investigation which was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
undertaken by the Investigating Officer in reference to FIR in Crime
No. 75/2017.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length
and we are of the view that neither Section 36 of the Code nor the
circulars of which a reference has been made during the course of
arguments in any way provides for holding an independent and
parallel inquiry along with the investigation going ahead in reference
to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017.
In the instant case, a complaint was made for holding fair
investigation in reference to the FIR in Crime No. 75/2017, we find no
reason the officers under whose instructions an independent inquiry
was initiated apart from the investigation which was going ahead in
reference to the crime, in contravention of the procedure prescribed by
law.
After the matter is examined at length by the High Court under
the impugned judgment(s) for which reference has been made that an
independent inquiry which was conducted in reference to the FIR in
Crime No. 75/2017 was in no manner contemplated by law and in this
reference observations have been made in regard to the conduct of the
officers in holding an inquiry in reference to the FIR in Crime No.
75/2017.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State filed
their counter affidavit and has placed on record a circular dated 26th
June, 2010 under the instructions of the Inspector General of Police,
Madhya Pradesh. We find that the circular of the State Government is
in conformity with Section 36 of the Code, but the procedure which
was followed by the officers in holding inquiry was not in consonance
with the circular of which a reference has been made by the High
Court under the impugned judgment.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and taking
note of the material on record, we find no error being committed by
the High Court in the judgment impugned, which may call for our
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Consequently, both the petitions fail and are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
21. Thus, it is clear that Shri Mayank Awasthi has no regards for the law of
land and he is in habit of functioning as a Police Officer according to his own
whims and wishes, thereby giving a complete go-by to the law of the land.
Whether he has respect for fundamental and statutory rights of litigants or not
is not required to be stated specifically, but the situation speaks for
themselves.
22. Now, it is for the Director General of Police to decide as to whether
such types of persons are to be retained in Police Department or not? If yes,
then whether they can be assigned any field duty or not ?
23. Be that whatever it may be.
24. Since the conduct of Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of
Police, Datia, at present posted as DIG, Bhopal is much below the standard
which is expected from a senior police officer and is contrary to the law of
the land, accordingly, this Court by order dated 20.03.2025 sought reply from
Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia as to why
departmental enquiry should not be directed to be initiated for violating the
order dated 07.09.2018.
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory Of Jammu And
Kashmir & Ors. Vs. Abdul Rehman Khandey & Ors. decided on
07.03.2025 in SLP (Civil) No.5873/2025 has held that sometimes the
officers of the department do not take action to comply with the orders
passed by the Courts and they are required to be proceeded against
departmentally and has held as under:
"4. In actuality, we consider the instant case fit for imposing
exemplary costs on the delinquent officers, besides also
recommending strong disciplinary actions against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
However, we presently refrain ourselves from doing so, keeping
in view the fact that the contempt proceedings are still pending
before the learned Single Judge. We, consequently, request the
learned Single Judge to take up the contempt proceedings on a
weekly basis and ensure that majesty and sanctity of law is well
maintained."
26. Accordingly, the Director General of Police is directed to initiate
departmental enquiry against Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP Datia,
presently posted as DIG, Bhopal on the charges that he deliberately interfered
with the investigation and order dated 07.09.2018 passed by Trial Court by
not producing the record which was already received by him on 17.09.2018
and got a false reply submitted before the Trial Court on 01.10.2018 that
action has been initiated for preserving the record whereas CDR and
locations of mobile numbers and SIM numbers were already with Shri
Mayank Awasthi but he deliberately withheld the same.
Thus, it is clear that not only Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP Datia,
had violated the orders passed by the Trial Court but has also interfered with
the investigation by withholding the material which was collected.
27. Let charge-sheet be issued within one month from today and the
Director General of Police of the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to
intimate the Principal Registrar of this Court in that regard, latest by
20.05.2025.
28. Let certified copy of this order be also kept in the service record of
Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP Datia, who is presently posted as
DIG, Bhopal so that it can be taken note of by the department in future.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
Conduct of Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya, the then SHO, Police
Station Deepar, District Datia (M.P.):
29. Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya has filed his response, pleading inter
alia that on 07.09.2018, the order was passed by the Trial Court and
immediately on 08.09.2018, he wrote a letter to the then SP. District Datia
(M.P.) for preserving the records and thereafter on 17.11.2018 he was
transferred from Police Station Deepar, District Datia (M.P.). Thus, he did
not waste even a single day for ensuring compliance of order dated
07.09.2018. However, it is not known that under what circumstances, the
reply dated 01.10.2018 was filed by Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya before
the Trial Court in which he did not disclose that the record of mobile
locations as well as call details of mobile numbers and SIM numbers has
already been received. As already pointed out that it is Shri Mayank Awasthi,
the then SP. Datia who was already in possession of information but it was
deliberately suppressed. Therefore, looking to the post which Shri Yatendra
Singh Bhadoriya was holding i.e. Junior SI, and the conduct of Shri Mayank
Awasthi, it is clear that the information that record has already been received
by Shri Mayank Awasthi might not be in the knowledge of Shri Yatendra
Singh Bhadoriya, the then SHO, Police Station Deepar, District Datia (M.P.).
Thereafter, within a short span of one month, he was transferred from Police
Station Deepar District Datia. Thus, it is clear that after 17.11.2018, he lost
all his control over the affairs of Police Station Deepar, District Datia.
30. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to pass any
stricture against Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya. Therefore, without
exonerating and subject to enquiry as to whether he had deliberately
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
suppressed the information from the Court, Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya is
exonerated for the time being. But this finding will not come in his favour in
case if a detailed enquiry is conducted by the Trial Court with regard to the
role of Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya. Since this Court has already directed
the Trial Court to initiate proceedings for Contempt of Court, therefore, this
Court is not inclined to record any finding as to whether Shri Mayank
Awasthi, the then Superintendent of Police, Datia has forwarded information
to Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya, the then SHO, Police Station Deepar,
District Datia (M.P.) with regard to receipt of call details and mobile
locations of mobile numbers or not and it is left to the discretion of the
Trial Court to decide as to whether it would like to proceed against Shri
Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya, the then SHO, Police Station Deepar,
District Datia (M.P.) under the Contempt of Courts Act or not, after
giving a specific finding as to whether information with regard to receipt
of information by Mayank Awasthi was forwarded to Yatendra Singh
Bhadoriya or not ?
Conduct of Shri Amar Singh Gurjar, Present SHO, Police Station
Deepar, District Datia (M.P.):
31. As already pointed out that when an application under Section 233 of
Cr.P.C. was filed, Shri Amar Singh Gurjar, Present SHO, Police Station
Deepar, District Datia (M.P.) filed a reply that the record which was directed
to be preserved by order dated 07.09.2018 could not be preserved, therefore
the same cannot be filed, which is false. Therefore, liberty is also granted
to the Trial Court to consider as to whether it would like to proceed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8289
against Shri Amar Singh Gurjar, Present SHO, Police Station Deepar,
District Datia (M.P.) for filing a false reply before the Trial Court or not.
32. Considering the fact that call details and locations of mobile numbers
and SIM numbers which were directed to be preserved by the Trial Court by
order dated 07.09.2018 are in possession of present Superintendent of Police,
Datia, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by First
Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) in ST No.02/2018
is hereby set aside.
33. Superintendent of Police, Datia (M.P.) is directed to file the complete
record of call details and locations of mobile numbers and SIM numbers
which were directed to be preserved by the Trial Court by order dated
07.09.2018 within a period of 10 days from today, if not already filed. The
Trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.
34. Petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
