Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief related to the investigation where it is alleged that despite the rejection of a closure report by the Magistrate in 2017, no further action was taken by the police, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., while emphasising on the seriousness of the matter, directed a thorough investigation by the Director General of Police into the mishandling of the case by the Investigating Officer and supervising officers, emphasising accountability and adherence to legal procedures.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief regarding the investigation into a crime at P.S. Balaghat, District-Balaghat. The closure report filed by the police was rejected by the Magistrate in 2017, leading to further investigation. However, no action was taken thereafter. The Superintendent of Police, Balaghat delegated the matter to the Additional Superintendent of Police, who also failed to conclude the enquiry.
The Court observed discrepancies in the handling of the case by the Investigating Officer and supervising officers, indicating negligence and potential malfeasance. The Court found prima facie evidence of the Investigating Officer and the then SHO acting to provide undue advantage to accused persons. The Court noted that despite repeated directives from the court and the rejection of closure reports by the Magistrate, no substantial progress was made in the investigation. The Court asserted that “why the SHO, Police Station Kotwali Balaghat was showing such keen interest by showing this investigation as closed, is also a matter of investigation. However, the darker side of the picture is yet to come.” The Court asserted that the failure of the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat to take the Court’s orders seriously warranted the involvement of the Director General of Police and held that assigning the inquiry to the Director General of Police was necessary to ensure seriousness and accountability in addressing the issues raised in the case.
While rejecting the request to assign the enquiry to another officer, the Court directed the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh to conduct an enquiry into the matter and register an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Investigating Officer and the then SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat. The Court also tasked the Director General of Police with verifying the involvement of any other individuals in granting undue advantage and shall submit the report within one month. The Court held that the investigation/enquiry must be conducted solely by the Director General of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh.
[Atul Mandlekar v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1635, order dated 20-03-2024]
*Judgment by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Saurabh Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Swapnil Ganguly – Deputy Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondent 1 — 5/State
Shri Hemant Namdeo, Counsel for the Respondent 6 to 9
Buy Constitution of India HERE
