Rajveer Singh vs State Of Mp. & Anr

Mr. Kamal Maurya, Additional Superintendent of Police/Investigating Officer of the case, is present in person along with original case diary.

A permission to file the reply on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri as well as on behalf of Pradeep Walter was taken by the Public

Prosecutor in the morning and a copy of the same has been made available to the Court. However, still it is not known that whether the said reply has

been filed by the State or not.

Subodh Toppo, ASI, Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri has sent his reply to the Principal Registrar of this Court, which is also taken on record.

Shri Kamal Maurya was asked about the steps which he has taken in the matter. It was replied by him that on 8/5/2018, he received the case diary

with an instruction to investigate the matter. On 9th and 10th of May, 2018, he was in the Supreme Court of India in connection with some other case,

therefore, he could not go through the case diary. He came back to Shivpuri on 10th of May, 2018. It is further submitted by Mr. Kamal Maurya that

since it is a new case, therefore, he wants to talk to the complainant.

This submission of thinking of having talk with the complainant has only one meaning and that is, the Investigating Officer wants to record the

supplementary statement of the complainant. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 2006. However, with great difficulties and only

after the intervention of the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior range, Gwalior, the FIR was lodged in the year 2011, against the applicant and

coaccused Raghvendra Shukla. As already pointed out by this Court in the previous order that even after the direction given by the Inspector General

of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior, the FIR was not lodged, but every attempt was made by the police authorities to ignore the order passed by the

Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior because after receiving instructions from the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range,

Gwalior, the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior sought further opinion from the DPO, Shivpuri as to whether any offence can be registered or not.

However, in the nutshell, the FIR was lodged in the year 2011. It appears that immediately after the FIR was lodged, the applicant Rajveer Singh

Gurjar pressurized the complainant and obtained an affidavit from the complainant, in his favor. As already pointed out in the previous order-sheets

that Rajveer Singh Gurjar had filed the petition before this Court for quashment of the FIR and in that petition, he moved an application for quashment

of the proceedings on the basis of compromise and the said application was allowed and the criminal proceedings were quashed by this Court by order

dated 27/2/2013 passed in MCRC No. 8802/2011. As already pointed out in the previous order that, the order of this Court was challenged by the

State Government itself, by filing a SLP (Cri) No. 5266/2014. The said SLP was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court by order dated 25/4/2016

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 446/2016. It is not out of place to mention here that the State itself was aggrieved by the order of this Court by which

the criminal proceedings were quashed against Rajveer Singh Gurjar on the basis of compromise. Thus, one thing is clear that at the first instance, the

Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior, was of the view that the matter requires investigation after registration of FIR and at the second

instance, when the FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise, then the State itself was of the view that it is a serious matter warranting

investigation and the FIR against Rajveer Singh Gurjar should not have been quashed on the basis of compromise, and that is why, the S.L.P. was

filed before the Supreme Court.

Be that as it may be.

The crux of the matter is that the order dated 27/2/2013 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 8802/2011 was quashed by the

Supreme Court by order dated 25/4/2016 and it was specifically held that considering the allegations and counter allegations, the matter should not

have been quashed on the basis of compromise, as it requires investigation. The copy of the order of the Supreme Court was received by Police

Station Karera, District Shivpuri on 6/6/16 and 22/6/2016, but merely by keeping the same in the case diary, nothing was done by the Investigating

Officer. Thus, it is clear that the Investigating Officer had no respect for the Supreme Court of India and he thought that he can conveniently sit over

the order of the Supreme Court.

However, unfortunate aspect of the matter is that it is not the end of the manipulation. Co-accused Raghvendra Shukla had also filed a petition under

Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of the FIR. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order dated 25/11/2011 in MCRC No.

8358/2011 and directed that “no coercive action†shall be taken against the petitioner (co-accused Raghvendra Shukla) till the next date of

hearing. Initially, the Investigating Officer conveniently interpreted the words “no coercive action†as stay on the investigation. However, it

appears that the Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri was itself in doubt that whether “no coercive action†would mean stay of investigation or

not, therefore, a legal opinion was sought from the office of the Additional Advocate General and the office of the Additional Advocate General, in its

turn, by its opinion dated 12/7/2014, specifically clarified that the words “no coercive action†does not mean stay of investigation and the

Investigating Officer shall carry on the investigation in regard to Crime No. 332/2011. Thus, if the Investigating Officer had any doubt with regard to

the interpretation of words “no coercive actionâ€, then it was clarified by the office of the Additional Advocate General by its legal opinion dated

12/7/2014. This legal opinion is also a part of case diary which clearly means that at least in the month of July, 2014, the Investigating Officer was

aware of the fact that he has to proceed further with the investigation, but still nothing was done.

Unfortunately, it is also not the end of the matter.

When MCRC No. 8358/2011 was taken up for hearing, this Court found that neither the response of the State was on record, nor the case diary was

available, therefore, an opportunity was given to the State to obtain the case diary and the interim order granted on the earlier occasion was extended.

As already pointed out and it is being observed, that in every case, only a part of the photocopy of the case diary is being sent by the police stations of

nine Districts, which fall within the jurisdiction of this Bench and the original diary is never sent by the police station. A response was also filed by the

Investigating Officer in MCRC No. 8358/2011 and, in that response, it was mentioned that because of the interim order of “no coercive actionâ€

against the applicant (coaccused Raghvendra Shukla), the Investigating Officer is not in a position to arrest him as a result of which, the charge-sheet

could not be filed so far. Thus, it is clear that the Investigating Officer was clear in his mind that the evidence, which has been collected so far against

the applicant as well as against co-accused Raghvendra Shukla, is sufficient for filing the charge-sheet.

However, that is also not the end of the matter.

A reply was filed by the State in MCRC No. 8358/2011 on 6/2/2017 and although the order of the Supreme Court was already with the S.H.O., Police

Station Karera, Distt. Shivpuri, but still the Investigating Officer, very conveniently did not bring the order of the Supreme Court to the knowledge of

this Court and he kept mum in that regard. At the time of the hearing of MCRC No. 8358/2011, it was very vehemently argued that since the

complainant had compromised with the present applicant Rajveer Singh Gurjar, therefore, Raghvendra Shukla should also be given the same benefit as

the FIR against Rajveer Singh Gurjar has already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 27/2/2013 passed in MCRC No.

8802/2011. Although, this Court was not aware of the order dated 25/4/2016 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal appeal No. 446/2016, but still

considering the allegations made against co-accused Raghvendra Shukla, the submission made by the counsel for the co-accused for extending the

same benefit to him which was extended by a co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 27/2/2013 passed in MCRC No. 8802/2011 was declined

and it was specifically held that since Hakim Singh, the person to whom the gunshot injury was caused, was not made an accused in the charge-sheet

filed against the dacoits, therefore, the police itself was of the view that Hakim Singh was an innocent person and under such circumstances, the

investigation cannot be quashed. Shri Bhagwanlal, who was the investigating officer, at the relevant time and had filed the response, with his affidavit,

has also filed his reply in this proceedings, to the effect, that the order of the Supreme Court was never given to him by his superior police officers and

that is why, it was not mentioned in the reply.

It was found that the order dated 10/4/2017 passed in MCRC No. 8358/2011 was not in the case diary. It was verified from the registry of this Court

and it was found that the order dated 10/4/2017 was already dispatched to the SHO, Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri by registered post and this

Court by order dated 16/4/2018 held that in view of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, the delivery of the registered post can be presumed. This

Court by order dated 7/5/2018 had clearly observed that although the presumption raised under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is a rebuttable

presumption, but no effort has been made by the State to rebut the same and, therefore, it was held that the order dated 10/4/2017 passed by this

Court in MCRC No. 8358/2011 was received by the SHO, Police Station Karera and with an intention to give undue advantage to the accused person,

the same was not kept deliberately in the case diary.

On 7/5/2018, the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri had appeared in person and a detailed order was passed in his presence. The Superintendent of

Police, Shivpuri had made a submission that the investigation shall be handed over to the Additional Superintendent of Police and, therefore, an

impression was created by the

Superintendent of Police Shivpuri in the mind of this Court that now there is a possibility of independent and honest investigation. However, still the

facts of the case depict a very sorry state of affairs, at least in district Shivpuri.

Today, when Mr. Kamal Maurya, Additional Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, to whom the investigation has been handed over, appeared before this

Court, he made a specific statement that he wants to have a talk with the complainant. When a specific question was put to him as to why he wants to

meet the complainant, then he stated that he wants to visit the place of occurrence. The reply given by Mr. Kamal Maurya, Additional Superintendent

of Police, cannot be accepted because the incident took place in the year 2006 and visiting the place of occurrence after 12 years is of no use.

However, there may be another reason for having talk with the complainant. As already pointed, Rajveer Singh Gurjar had filed an affidavit of the

complainant before this Court for quashment of the FIR on the basis of compromise and the FIR against Rajveer Singh Gurjar was also quashed on

the basis of compromise. Mr. Kamal Maurya was asked to read the statement of Hakim Singh which was recorded by the Investigating Officer under

Section 161 of CrPC and he has read that statement in the open court and in that statement, there is a specific allegation that the gunshot was fired by

Raghvendra Shukla. When a specific statement of the complainant under Section 161 of CrPC was already in the case diary, then decision of meeting

with the complainant after 12 years of incident and that too when the present applicant Rajveer Singh Gurjar has already won over the complainant, by

pressurizing him, clearly shows that the attempt of the Investigating Officer was to record his supplementary statement about the compromise

between the complainant, Rajveer Singh Gurjar and Raghvendra Shukla and then to proceed further.

Unfortunately, at every step, every police officer has tried to flout the law and order of this country. Initially, the instructions given by the Inspector

General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior under Section 36 of CrPC were flouted by the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri by seeking opinion from

DPO, Shivpuri and, thereafter, when a specific finding was given by the Supreme Court, by holding that the matter is a serious one and it requires

investigation, then for the last more than two years, the police authorities are conveniently sitting over the said order. It is unfortunate that when this

Court, while deciding the petition filed by Raghvendra Shukla under Section 482 of CrPC has considered the factual aspect of the matter, has found

that the allegations are serious and the investigation cannot be quashed, even then the said order was deliberately kept outside the case diary.

It is submitted by Mr. Kamal Maurya that yesterday he was told by SDO (P) Karera, District Shivpuri that he is in possession of order dated

10/4/2017 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 8358/2011 and therefore, he would make the said order available. Fortunately, Mr. B.P. Tiwari, SDO

(P), Karera, District Shivpuri is also present in the Court. He was asked that when he got the copy of the order dated 10/4/2017 passed in MCRC No.

8358/2011, then it was replied by him that the same was in the case diary. As this Court had already seen the case diary on 7/5/2018 and it was found

that the case diary did not contain the order dated 10/4/2017 passed in MCRC No. 8358/2011, therefore, it is clear that the order dated 10/4/2017

passed by this Court in MCRC No. 8358/2011 was already in possession of SDO (P) Karera, District Shivpuri. This Court by order dated 7/5/2018,

had already held that the copy of the order dated 10/4/2017 passed in MCRC No. 8358/2011 was already served on the SHO, Police Station Karera,

District Shivpuri and with an intention to give undue advantage to the accused persons, the same was deliberately kept out of the case diary. The

submission made by the SDO (P) Karera District Shivpuri that he is already in possession of the order dated 10/4/2017 passed by this Court in MCRC

No. 8358/2011 fortifies the findings given by this Court with regard to the receipt of the order dated 10/4/2017 passed in MCRC No. 8358/2011 and

that, the same was deliberately kept out of the case diary.

There appears to be another disturbing fact of the case. On 7-5-2018, Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor, while verifying the page numbers of

the case diary had found that pages from serial no. 212 to 221 were missing from the case diary and accordingly it was observed by this Court as

under :

…............. Shri Prakhar Dhengula was also requested to verify that whether the entire case diary was properly numbered or not. After going through

the case diary, it was submitted by Shri Prakhar Dhengula that after page No.211 the next page is numbered as 222 instead of 212. It is further

submitted by Shri Prakhar Dhengula that it is not clear that whether these 10 pages were earlier taken out by the Investigating Officer from the case

diary or the incorrect numbering was done by mistake. However, in order to avoid further manipulation, he has corrected the numbering of the case

diary and page No.222 is renumbered as 212 and so on and the case diary contains total 420 pages. Since the diary is required for investigation of the

matter, therefore, it was directed that the photocopy of the entire case diary may be prepared in the presence of Shri V.D. Sharma and Shri Prakhar

Dhengula and each and every pages should be attested by the Superintendent of Police, District Shivpuri and Shri Pradeep Walter, SHO, P.S. Karera,

District Shivpuri so that the photocopy of the case diary may be kept in a sealed cover in this proceeding and the original case dairy may be returned.

Today, Shri B.P. Tiwari, S.D.O. (P), Karera, Distt. Shivpuri has made a statement that order dated 10-42017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8358/2011, was

in the case diary, although on 7-5-2018, it was found that the order dated 10-4-2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8358/2011, was not in the case diary.

However, on 7-5-2018, Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor had found that total 10 pages, bearing page no. 212 to 221, were missing from the

case diary. Order dated 10-4-2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8358/2011 runs in 5 pages. The remaining 5 pages may be the envelop, covering letters etc.

Thus, it appears that the police authorities had deliberately removed the order dated 10-4-2017 from the case diary, therefore, they did not try to rebut

the presumption drawn by this Court, under Section 27 General Clauses Act, regarding delivery of copy of order dated 10-4-2017. Thus, it appears

that at every step, the police authorities are playing fraud with this Court.

It is submitted by Shri Vishal Mishra, Additional Advocate General, that when the instructions were sought from the officer of Additional Advocate

General by the police officers during pendency of this petition, then they were told about the order dated 10/4/2017 passed by this Court in MCRC No.

8358/2011. Mr. Kamal Maurya, Additional Superintendent of Police, has fairly conceded before this Court that he had gone through the order dated

7/5/2018 passed by this Court in this case. That order runs in as many as 35 pages and in that order, there is a specific reference to the order dated

10/4/2017 passed in MCRC No. 8358/2011. Unfortunately, again with deliberate intention, the said order has not been kept in the case diary. The

order dated 10/4/2017, passed in MCRC No. 8358/2011 was passed after considering the factual aspects of the matter, therefore, the police

authorities must be finding themselves in a difficult position to get over the said order and thus, they found it more convenient to keep that order out of

the case diary so that they may try to mold the investigation with an ulterior motive, in order, to give undue advantage to the accused persons and that

too, contrary to the observations and findings given by the Supreme Court as well as by the High Court. This Court is conscious of the fact that the

Courts should not normally supervise the investigation, however, the police authorities of District Shivpuri have created such a situation where this

Court is left with no option but to consider the conduct of each and every person minutely.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of In Re: An unfortunate Incident In Unnao Of Rape And Murder Published in Various

Newspaper Vs. State of U.P., by its order dated 13-4-2018 has observed as under:-

“There can be no quarrel or two opinion on the proposition that is being advanced by learned Advocate General, the question that arises in the

given facts of the case, whether it is open to the law enforcing agency to let the accused move freely and give him further opportunity to tamper

evidence and witnesses with impunity. The incident that was reported way back on 17 August 2017 came to be registered on 12 April 2018, that too

after the death of the father of the prosecutrix. We are informed by learned Advocate General that few police personnels and doctors have been

suspended on the basis of SIT report. This further supports the contentions urged by Mr. Gopal Chaturvedi that immediate arrest of Kuldeep Singh is

necessary. We are further informed that the police personnels and doctors who tried to tamper with the evidence and acted under the influence of

Kuldeep Singh have been placed under suspension. That being so, it was submitted that a lot of damage has already been done and to avoid further

damage, the immediate arrest of the accused in particular Kuldeep Singh is must.

Chapter V of CrPC deals with the arrest of persons. Section 41 is the main Section, providing for situations when police may arrest without warrant.

Section 42 specifies yet another situation where a police officer can arrest a person. We are, however, not concerned with the said provision for the

case before us. Reading of the provisions of Sections 41 and 42, however, show the width of the power of arrest vested in police officers. Sub-section

(1) of Section 41, in particular clauses (a) and (b), cover the situations where a person who is ""concerned in any cognizable offence""; a person against

whom a reasonable complaint is made that he is ""concerned in a cognizable offence""; a person against whom ""credible information"" is received,

showing that he is ""concerned in any cognizable offence"" and a person who is reasonably suspected of being ""concerned any cognizable offence"". The

generality of language and the consequent wide discretion vesting in police officers is, indeed, enormous.

It is true that, often, the wide discretion vesting in the police officers is either abused or misused or the power of arrest is wrongly and illegally

exercised. The efforts of the courts, and in particular of the Supreme Court over a period of time, therefore, has been to circumscribe the vast

discretionary power vested by law in police by imposing several safeguards and to regulate it by laying down numerous guidelines and by subjecting

the said power to several conditionalities. The effort throughout has been to prevent its abuse while leaving it free to discharge the functions entrusted

to the police. In Joginder Kumar (supra), the powers of arrest and its exercise has been dealt with at length. It would be appropriate to refer to certain

observations in the judgment. In that case, it was alleged that the SHO had detained the petitioner for five days, implicating him falsely in some

criminal case. When the Supreme Court had issued notice, the SSP alongwith the petitioner appeared before Court and stated that the petitioner was

not in detention at all and that his help was taken for detecting some cases relating to abduction and the petitioner was helpful in cooperating with the

police. While dealing with this case, the Supreme Court referred to the Third Report of the National Police Commission and reproduced the

suggestions made therein, which read as under:-

An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances:

(i) The case involves agrave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under

restraint to infuse confidence among the terror-stricken victims.

(ii) The accused is likely toabscond and evade the processes of law.

(iii) The accused is given toviolent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.

(iv) The accused is a habitualoffender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again.

It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary the reasons

for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his conformity to the specified guidelines....

(emphasis supplied)

After quoting the suggestions as above, the Supreme Court in the said paragraph, observed thus:

... No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for

the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police

lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self- esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere

allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional

rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as

to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest.

Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of

the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must

be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences,

an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would

do.

From bare perusal of the above observations made in the light of the suggestions made in the Third Report of the National Police Commission, it

appears to us that an arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case is justified where the case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity,

robbery, rape etc., in order to bring the movements of the accused under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror-stricken victims. As observed

earlier, the power of arrest is enormous and has also been the very source of abuse and misuse. Abuse and misuse of the power to arrest, in our

opinion, does not only mean causing arrest without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of

a complainant and reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and need to effect arrest, but would also mean not exercising the discretion by

effecting of arrest even in cases involving grave offences like murder and rape/gang rape of minor, as in the present case. In other words, there is

every possibility that police officer/investigating agency may abuse and misuse the power by not arresting an accused, may be to help the accused, he

being an influential person, in a case where arrest is necessary to avoid further damage to the case or to prevent accused from tampering with the

evidence or terrorizing the witnesses and also to instill confidence not only amongst the terror-stricken victims but even the people at large. The

judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon, would show that in all those cases, the arrest was effected illegally, wrongly and without any justification.

But in a case, like the case in hand, where it is clear that accused have done everything that is possible to create terror in minds of victims, to tamper

with evidence and kill the father of the prosecutrix, in the presence and with the connivance of the police. The Supreme Court, time and again, has

taken cognizance of cases against politicians, elected Members of Legislative Assembly or the Parliament, their involvement in criminal cases and

delay in disposal of cases pending against them. The present case, perhaps, is also one of such cases which, so far, has not been handled fairly,

properly and honestly. We are of the opinion that at least now, the police should act promptly and not give an impression that they are trying to shield

the accused persons, by following procedure unknown to the criminal jurisprudence,â€​

On 7/5/2018, a submission was made by the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, that the present applicant Rajveer Singh Gurjar and co-accused

Raghvendra Shukla shall be placed under suspension and a reply has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri pointing out that these two

persons have been placed under suspension, however, there is no reference as to whether these two persons, against whom an offence under Section

307 of IPC, has been registered and which is a non-bailable offence, will be arrested or not? In the morning session, a prayer was made by the office

of the Additional Advocate General, for pass over because the reply was under preparation and at that time, it was enquired by this Court that

although the accused persons might have been placed under suspension, but whether the arrest of the accused in a non-bailable offence is required or

not and whether the police can avoid arrest of the police personals, of the rank of Constable and A.S.I., facing charge of committing offence under

Section 307 of IPC and whether these police personnel are above the law and why the police immediately tries to arrest an ordinary citizen of India

for a non-bailable offence? It was clearly pointed out by this Court that if the police authorities are of the view that a person, who is facing allegations

for committing a non-bailable offence, is not required to be arrested merely because he is a police personnel, then why the same benefit should not be

extended to all the citizens of India.

At 2:30 pm, the Additional Superintendent of Police, who is investigating the matter, has appeared and submitted that now an attempt is being made to

arrest the accused persons. Unfortunately, when this Court asked the Additional Advocate General that if the police is of the view that in a non-

bailable offence, an accused, who is a police personnel, is not required to be arrested, then why the same benefit should not be extended to all the

citizens of India, only then it appears that because of the intervention of the office of the Additional Advocate General, the investigating officer has

started making an attempt to arrest the accused. This Court is also conscious of the fact that directing the investigating officer to arrest an accused

may amount to supervision, however, the situation which has been created by the police authorities by showing utter disregard to the Supreme Court

of India as well as to this Court and the manner in which the police authorities are trying to mislead the court by suppressing the fact and the manner

in which the investigating officer is trying to record the supplementary statement of the complainant specifically when the present applicant has

already pressurized the complainant and has come forward with an affidavit of the complainant and had got the proceedings quashed on the basis of

compromise, this Court is of the considered opinion that a situation has been created where this Court is required to look into the case diary, although

for limited purpose that whether the investigation is being done in a free and fair manner or not?

It is well established principle of law that the prosecution is under obligation to give full protection to the victim and the witnesses, so that they can

depose truth before the Trial Court, fearlessly. However, in the present case, immediately after the F.I.R. was lodged, the applicant Rajveer Singh

Gurjar, who is a police personal, obtained the affidavit of compromise from the complainant. Thus, it is clear that, by adopting any mean, Rajveer Singh

Gurjar, must have pressurized the complainant, to enter into a compromise. Where the duty of the prosecution is to provide adequate security to the

witnesses, but unfortunately, in the present case, the police personals were involved in pressurizing the victim to enter into a compromise. And now the

attempt on the part of the Investigating Officer, of having a talk with the victim, clearly indicates, that the police authorities are still trying their level

best to pressurize the victim, so that he may not narrate the truth and on the basis of the supplementary statement, an undue advantage may be

extended to the accused police personals.

Unfortunately, at every step, the conduct of the SHO, Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri and the Investigating Officers was found, contrary to

law as well as contrary to their statutory duties. When the police authorities are not ready to act in accordance with law, then this Court cannot keep

its eyes closed.

It was found that Mr. Maurya is not only having the original case diary with him, but he is also having two files with him. On the instructions of the

Court, those files were shown to the Court. One file was with regard to the FIR lodged by Rajveer Singh Gurjar, in which the fact of sustaining

gunshot injury by Hakim Singh was mentioned and that fact was already taken into consideration by this Court in its order dated 10/4/2017 passed in

MCRC No. 8358/2011. Although S.D.O.(P), Karera, Distt. Shivpuri, is in possession of the order dated 10-4-2017, passed by this Court, in M.Cr.C.

No. 8358/2011, but not only the said order has not been kept in the Police Case Diary, but at the same time, the Additional Superintendent of

Police/investigating Officer, is expressing his ignorance about the said order. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be safe to leave

the investigation in the hands of the Police of Distt. Shivpuri. Thus, the original case diary as well as two folders, which Mr. Kamal Maurya was

having with him, are sealed in the presence of Mr. Kamal Maurya, Additional Superintendent of Police, Shri Vishal Mishra, Additional Advocate

General, Shri V.D. Sharma, Advocate and Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor. The original case diary as well as two folders,which were

brought by Mr. Kamal Maurya, are returned back, to Mr. Kamal Maurya, in two sealed envelops, with a specific direction that any further

manipulation in the case diary would be dealt with strictly and Mr. Kamal Maurya is directed to keep both the sealed envelopes with him, in safe

custody till, further order is passed.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the police of District Shivpuri may not be allowed to continue with the

investigation. Accordingly it is directed that till further orders, the investigation in the matter shall remain stayed.

Since, Mr. Maurya has made a submission that the police parties have already been dispatched to arrest these two accused persons, therefore, the

police of District Shivpuri is allowed only to arrest the accused persons and to produce them before the Magistrate, but they are restrained from doing

any other investigation or even touching the case diary. Even the Police of District Shivpuri, shall not pray for Police Remand, till further orders. It is

made clear that if the Magistrate/Sessions Court, is of the view that they are required to look into the case diary, then, in the presence of Shri Kamal

Maurya, the case diary may be opened, but it is directed, that the case diary shall be re-sealed in the presence of Shri Kamal Mourya, Additional S.P.,

Shivpuri.

Mr. Subodh Toppo has filed his reply and in that reply, it is mentioned that after his transfer, the SubInspector Bhagwan Lal had handed over the case

diary of Crime No. 331/2011 to Head Constable Mahendra Singh Chouhan and, thereafter, the said case diary was handed over to Mr. Ajay Jat for

investigation purposes.

Let the notices be issued to Mr. Mahendra Singh Chouhan and Mr. Ajay Jat, who at present is posted at Police Station Kolaras, District Shivpuri to

show cause as to why action should not be taken against them.

Let necessary reply be filed within a week.

Issue notice to B.P. Tiwari, SDO (P) Karera as to why the order dated 10/4/2017 passed in MCRC No.8358/2011 was not kept in the case diary and

why he kept the said order with him and why it should not be viewed as an attempt to give undue advantage to the accused persons, as it has already

been observed by this Court that from the very beginning the police officers are trying to save the police personnel contrary to the instructions of their

superior officer as well as contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court as well as by the High Court.

Let reply be filed within fifteen days.

At this stage, it is submitted by Shri Vishal Mishra, Additional Advocate General, that once the compromise was entered into and the order of the High

Court was set aside by the Supreme Court and the matter was remanded back and investigation was directed by the Supreme Court, then authorities

are required to complete the investigation and it is mandatory on their part. They should have done it from the very beginning since the order of the

Supreme Court was brought to the knowledge of the authorities, but that was not done. After order dated 10/4/2017, this Court had also clarified the

situation, including the factual aspects. After passing of this order, definitely steps should have been taken by the Investigating Officer to arrest the

accused, to complete the investigation and file the charge-sheet, therefore, so far as the negligence on the part of erring officers is concerned, that

aspect should be left open to the senior officers of police to deal with.

List this case on 18/6/2018 and on that day, further course of action shall be considered and the Additional Advocate General is requested to address

that under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the matter should be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation or whether the

local police of District Shivpuri can be allowed to continue with the investigation or whether the Superintendent of Police of some other District not

falling within the jurisdiction of Gwalior range should be asked to investigate the matter.

The Additional Advocate General is also requested to address the Court, on the question, that by making an attempt to shield and protect the accused

persons, whether different police officers, who have handled the case diary at different point of time, have committed any criminal offence or not and

whether their prosecution should be ordered or not?

Since, the investigation has already been stayed and Mr. Kamal Maurya has already been directed not to touch the case diary, therefore, the presence

of Mr. Kamal Maurya would not be required although the State would be obliged to file the reply that whether the accused persons have been

arrested or not.

It is further directed, that since, Rajveer Singh Gurjar and Raghvendra Shukla have already been placed under suspension, therefore, their suspension

shall not be revoked without seeking permission from this Court.

List this case on 18/6/2018.