MP High Court Upholds Cop's Demotion Under Whom Minor Was Illegally Held & Later Released After Subordinates Took Bribes
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the demotion of a Station House Officer, observing that the punishment was proportionate in view of the serious misconduct, including the illegal detention of a 16-year-old youth at night by subordinates and the alleged demand of illegal gratification for his release. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 230]Rejecting the officer's contention that his penalty...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the demotion of a Station House Officer, observing that the punishment was proportionate in view of the serious misconduct, including the illegal detention of a 16-year-old youth at night by subordinates and the alleged demand of illegal gratification for his release. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 230]
Rejecting the officer's contention that his penalty was disproportionate compared to that imposed on co-delinquent subordinate officers, the bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai emphasized that a senior police officer bears higher responsibility and is under strict duty to supervide the conduct of his junior staff.
The bench observed:
"A punishment is considered "shockingly disproportionate" only when it is far too harsh compared to the mistake committed. In this case, the petitioner's negligence was not minor. Under his direct watch, a 16-year-old minor was illegally detained at night, and his staff took illegal money to release the youths. As the SHO, it was his primary duty to protect the rights of citizens and strictly follow the Juvenile Justice Act, which he completely failed to do".
Per the facts, four youths were brought in to the station over gambling activities, while the petitioner was posted as the Station House Officer of Vijaynagar Police Station, Indore. The Santari Register clearly registered the age of one of the youths to be 16 years. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the youths under Section 4A of the Gambling Act.
Following this incident, one Ashish Jadon approached the Assitant Commissioner of Police, claiming illegal detention and the demand for money by the police staff to release the said youths. A preliminary inquiry was initiated and recorded specific findings of procedural violations, illegal demands for money by subordinates, and severe supervisory negligence. Thus, a full-fledged departmental inquiry was initiated and after the Enquiry Officer found that the charges were proved, the petitioner was demoted for three years.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the penalty imposed on him was disproportionate to the punishments of co-delinquent subordinates who were granted lighter punishments.
The counsel for the State argued that since one of the youths was 16 years of age, the statutory obligations under the Juvenile Justice Act were automatically attracted. Further, the SHO has a statutory duty to supervise and ensure the lawful discharge of duties.
The court noted that the preliminary inquiry report exposes "glaring chain of negligence and supervisory abdication" by the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner failed to implement the mandatory provisions of the JJ Act, noting that once the juvenile was brought into the police station, he should have been handed over to the Child Welfare Police Officer.
However, the bench noted that the petitioner "turned a blind eye" towards the minor's age and allowed him to be illegally detained in the police station until midnight. The bench further noted that the petitioner had met the complainant outside the station and specifically stated that the complainant's nephew was held for online gambling and that an FIR would be filed. Such conduct of the petitioner shows that he was actively aware of the illegal detention.
Emphasising that there was a "complete breakdown of command and control over the petitioner's watch", the bench noted that the subordinate constables were actively negotiating and receiving illegal gratification from the families of detained youth to secure their release without formal legal proceedings.
The court further noted that there was manipulation of official records, noting that the youths were released late at night on June 15, 2023, after they were paid illegal gratification.
The bench empahsized, "The co-delinquents (Constables and a Sub-Inspector) had limited powers and cannot be compared to the petitioner. Treating the head of a police station equally with a junior constable would be completely illogical. The difference in punishment is justified because of the petitioner's senior rank and the higher trust placed in him by the department".
Thus, the bench dismissed the writ petition, noting that the penalty order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error.
Case Title: Ravindra Singh Gurjar v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 45186/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 230
For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Prakash Upadhyay with Advocate Rakesh Singh Bhadoria
For State: Government Advocate Swati Ukhale