Bombay High Court: In the present writ petition, attention of the Court was drawn towards a lousy probe in an economic offence, wherein the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) did not complete even the basics of the investigation even though the first information report (‘FIR’) was lodged a long time before. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., ordered the Director General of Police (‘DGP’) to explain on oath whether the provisions of the law enacted by the Parliament were binding on the State police force and why the subordinate officers were not following the Circulars issued by the topmost authority of the police department.
It was submitted on instructions from the APP that though the crime was registered on 3-6-2024. i.e., 13 months ago, still not even the drawing of panchnama of scene of offence or the premises in question was completed by the IO till date. The Court perused the case diary and found that it was maintained in an absolute casual manner i.e., loose leaf in a yellow colour plastic file. The first page of the case diary had no number and date and was typed on a ledger paper. It was thus clear that the IO violated the mandate of law under Section 172(1-B) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) coupled with the various Circulars and directions issued by the office of the DGP, Maharashtra State.
The Court noted that the office of the DGP had issued Circulars on 6-12-2018, 16-9-2021, and 12-2-2024, and had repeatedly directed all the police personnel in the State to maintain case diary as per Section 172 CrPC. Another Circular dated 11-2-2011 issued by the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, directed all the IOs to follow the amended Section 172(1-B) CrPC.
The Court emphasised that all the police personnel in the State ‘must’ follow the mandate of law as per the provisions of the CrPC as well as the directions issued by the office of the DGP. The Court, in its earlier Order, observed that the directions issued by the DGP were not percolated to the lower rank of police personnel, and they were blatantly violating them which was unconscionable and unpardonable. It appeared that in a disciplined police force, the police personnel themselves were not following the discipline and were not following the mandatory directions issued by the office of the DGP.
The Court ordered the DGP to file a detailed reply to the petition and to explain on oath as to why the Circulars issued by its office were not being followed by its subordinate officers. Further, the DGP was also asked to explain on oath whether the provisions of the laws enacted by the Parliament were binding and mandatory on the police personnel in the State of Maharashtra or those were to be retained only in the books of law.
The Court observed that if the answer to the said questions were affirmative, the DGP would take necessary action against the IO concerned, for committing breach of provisions of the CrPC and violating the various Circulars issued by the office of DGP. The Court also directed the DGP not to delegate its power to any subordinate officer while filing the reply.
The Court reserved the right to take necessary action against the IO concerned for breach of the provisions of law if deemed necessary and required and listed the matter for 21-7-2025.
[Sorabh Kamal Jain v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 2795 of 2024, decided on 7-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Abinash Pradhan, Garima Agrawal and Yash Dedhia i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. Mihir Gheewala a/w Apoorva Kulkarni i/b SSB Legal and Advisory
For the Respondents: Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P. Girish Kulkarni, Senior Advocate a/w Mrunmai Kulkarni
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
