Police 'Clandestinely' Providing Closure Report To Accused Despite Prohibition In CrPC And RTI Act Is Serious Misconduct: Madhya Pradesh HC

While hearing a plea seeking recall of an order upholding the direction for registration of FIR against Petitioner, the Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed its concern at the "clandestine manner" in which police authorities provided certain documents to the Petitioner-accused, despite statutory prohibitions.

In stating so, the high court observed that the "misconduct shown by the Officers is a serious misconduct and should not be dealt with in a light manner". 

A single-judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia in its October 14 order observed, “There is another alarming situation, which is required to be dealt with. The closure report, which has been filed alongwith I.A. No.5587/2024 was not granted to petitioner or any Pairokar of petitioner or co-accused Basant Narayan under any provision of law. Section 8 of Right to Information Act carves out an exception and the document, which may impede the investigation, can be denied under this Act. It is really surprising that on one hand the Right to Information Act prohibits the supply of document and even Section 172 of Cr.P.C. provides that the diary proceedings cannot be utilized by the defence still the Police Authorities are providing documents to the accused in a clandestine manner. This act of SHO, Police Station Gurh, District Rewa amounts to serious misconduct as well as dishonesty towards his duty.”

Background

The counsel for petitioner stated that his petition against registration of FIR was dismissed by order of August 11, 2023 but at the time of hearing, the counsel for petitioner could not bring to court's notice that the SHO, Police Station Gurh, District Rewa had prepared the closure report. The high court was hearing his application for recall of the order. 

From the closure report, it appeared that it was prepared on August 11, 2019 but it was not clear as to whether the report was ever filed before the concerned Magistrate. Accordingly, counsel for the State was directed to seek instructions and the case was passed over during the hearing on October 14.  When the matter was taken up again the State's counsel submitted that the "closure report was not accepted and the investigation was reopened".

Moreover, two accused persons had already been arrested and the petitioner and one more accused were still absconding. Therefore, the closure report on which petitioner has placed reliance was never acted upon.

The counsel for the State could not point out that under what provision of law copy of closure report, which bears signature of SHO, Police Station Gurh, District Rewa was provided to petitioner, the order notes.

The counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was provided a copy of this document by Basant Narayan, who is also a co-accused. However, it was fairly conceded that no application under Right to Information Act was ever filed, the court noted.

The court thus concluded that preparation of closure report was not brought to the Court's notice at the time of final arguments. It observed, “The closure report was never presented before the Court and it was never acted upon and ultimately, the case was reopened and two accused persons have already been arrested and petitioner and one more accused are still absconding. Whether petitioner was aware of this fact or not is not known but one thing is clear that closure report on which petitioner has placed reliance was never acted upon.”

Expressing its concern at the SHO's action, the high court directed the State's Director General of Police to to conduct an enquiry to find out that under what circumstances and by whom the closure report, which was prepared by the concerned SHO was supplied to petitioner or his Pairokar or to co-accused Basant Narayan as claimed by petitioner. The court directed that the inquiry be completed in two months from the date of the high court order asking the DGP to submit his report about steps taken by him against the "erring police officials". 

At this stage, the counsel for petitioner sought permission to withdraw the application for recall. The high court thereafter "dismissed the application as withdrawn". 

Case Title: AJAY TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHER, WRIT PETITION No. 11833 of 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 261

Click Here To Read/Download Order