Cops Instructed To Give Priority To Court Proceedings: State Tells Bombay HC After Objections Over "Less Weightage" Given To Court

The Maharashtra Government recently informed the Bombay High Court that the State's Director General of Police would soon be issuing a circular instructing the police officers across the State to take court proceedings 'seriously' and to give it 'priority' over other works.

This comes after a division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande on December 3, expressed displeasure over police officers giving "very less weightage" to the Court proceedings, as they are busy in other duties and imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on the State over the failure of an investigating officer to appear before it in relation to a petition filed way back in 2012.

"It is not uncommon that very less weightage is given by the Police Officers to the Court proceedings, as they are busy in other duties. We are sensitive to the fact that law and order is an important sovereign task which is entrusted to the Police Department but since they are also investigating officers in several crimes and are respondents in various proceedings filed before the Court, without their instructions or co-operation and in their absence proceedings cannot leap forward, as we never intend to have one sided decisions based upon the pleadings in the petition and expect an appropriate response from the respondents, the investigating officers, or the party who face certain allegations," the bench had stated in the order passed on December 3.

Further, the bench had said that in case like the instant one, which is pending for more than a decade, the court was not unjustified in asking officers to render their co-operation, since even the judges are under the pressure of disposing of the petitions at earliest.

The bench noted that the FIR in the instant case was lodged way back in 2010 and the instant proceedings to quash the same were initiated in 2012. The said petition was dismissed on November 26, this year, on the ground of default. However, it was later on restored and the investigating officer was specifically asked to remain present in the court on December 3. But when the matter was called out, Mankunwar Deshmukh, the additional public prosecutor, informed the bench that the officer was not present in the court since he was deployed on 'bandosbast' duty and thus, she had no instructions in the matter.

"We deprecate the approach of the police officers/investigating officers in giving last priority to the orders passed by this Court, and when we expect their co-operation, so that the Court can arrive at just decision. It is open for the State to recover cost from the person who has entrusted the officer with bandobast duty, despite being aware of the fact that important matter is listed before this Court and matter was required to be adjourned in absence of the said officer," the bench had observed on December 3, while imposing costs.

When the matter was re-notified recently on December 9, APP Deshmukh informed the bench that the DGP would be issuing a circular asking officers to take court proceedings seriously and give priority to it, over other works.

The judges, however, clarified, "We must clarify that we do not intend to convey that if there is a grave law and order situation or a similar contingency, still the officers would attend the proceedings, but the least we expect is some other officer who is deputed to attend the proceedings is instructed by him. Let the Director General of Police issue a circular to that effect, so that we are not constrained to impose cost on the next occasion."

The judges, underlined its expectation from the Police Officers that they need to be conscious of the "pressure" under which the Court functions.

"When we have the petitions pending for more than one decade, staring at us, we feel sorry for the litigants as we are unable to deliver speedy justice to them. But when we attempt to do so, if the prosecution creates an hindrance in our endeavor, we cannot help but impose cost on the officer, who is responsible for the delay," the judges said.

Meanwhile, the bench also refused to re-call the order passed on December 3, imposing costs on State, despite the officer explaining that he was put on bandobast duty to control the probable law and order situation with respect to the land acquisition for Mumbai-Vadodara National Highway. It dismissed the interim application. 

Appearance:

Advocates Yogesh Rawool, SS Redekar and Nitin Bhoir appeared for the Petitioners

Additional Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh represented the State.

Advocates Santosh Pawar, Rishabh B and Farhad Panthaki represented the Complainant. 

Case Title: Dr Anees Ahmed Shafique Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 3467 of 2012)

Click Here To Read/Download Order of December 9

Click Here to Read/Download Order of December 3