In a striking rebuke to what it termed an “unconscionable and unpardonable” lapse in police procedure, the Bombay High Court bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Rajesh Patil has directed the Director General of Police to personally explain on oath whether the provisions of law enacted by the Parliament of India are binding and mandatory on the police personnel in the State of Maharashtra or those are to be retained only in the books of law, and also to account for why official circulars issued by the DGP office are not being followed by its subordinate officers/police personnel.

Such an observation arises out of a petition highlighting glaring investigative deficiencies in an economic offense registered more than a year ago, where even the basic panchnama of the crime scene had not been conducted.

Additionally, when the case diary was presented, upon perusal of the same, the court deemed the diary to be maintained in the “absolute casual manner…”.The court also further observed that the first page of the case diary has no number and date. It is typed on a ledger paper and Case diary No.1 to 13 are in loose sheets.

Thus, it held that such conduct directly contravenes the express provisions of Section 172 of the CrPC as well as multiple circulars issued by the DGP’s office since 2011.

According to us, undoubtedly all the police personnel in the State of Maharashtra ‘must’ follow the mandate of law as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C, so also the directions issued by office of the Director General of Police. In our earlier Order, we have observed that, the directions issued by office of the Director General of Police are not percolated to the lower rank of police personnel and they are blatantly violating the directions issued by the top most Authority of the Police Department. This is unconscionable and unpardonable. It appears to us that, in a disciplined police force, the police personnel themselves are not following the discipline and are not following the mandatory directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police. The Court recorded it in its order (highlighted in the judgment).

Ultimately, after due deliberation, the bench therefore directed the Director General of Police to explain on oath and the same to be filed within a period of two weeks. Further, the bench also added that if the answer to the said questions are in the affirmative, the Director General of Police will be directed to take necessary action against the concerned Investigating Officer for committing a breach of provisions of the Cr.PC and so also violating the various Circulars issued by the office of the Director General of Police.

The matter will now be heard on 21st July, while also specifically directing the Director General to not delegate its power to any subordinate Officer while filing the reply.

Case Title: Sorabh Kamal Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Writ Petition No. 2795 Of 2024

Advocate For Petitioner in WP No. 2795 of 2024: Mr. Ashok Mundargi, senior Advocate a/w Mr. Abinash Pradhan, Ms. Garima Agrawal and Mr. Yash Dedhia i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co.

Advocate for Petitioners in WP No. 3939 of 2024: Mr. Mihir Gheewala a/w Ms. Apoorva Kulkarni i/b SSB Legal and Advisory

Advocate for Respondent (State): Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, A.P.P

Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both Petitions: Mr. Girish Kulkarni, senior Advocate a/w Ms. Mrunmai Kulkarni