The duty of the police in ensuring the expeditious examination of witnesses and disposal of trials, and the responsibility of the court to seek truth and issue instructions to the Public Prosecutor if necessary.

JUDGMENT

Case diary is available.

1. This eighth application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. Seventh application was dismissed by order dated 13.05.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21720/2022.

2. The applicant has been arrested on 22.01.2021 in connection with Crime No.78/2021 registered at Police Station - Station Road, District Morena for offence under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC.

3. In compliance of order dated 11.11.2022, the S.P., Morena has filed his report along with the minutes of the meeting of crime control held in the months of August, September and October, 2022. From the minutes of the said crime control meeting, it is clear that except by directing the SDO(P) to forward the report, nothing was done.

4. When this Court by order dated 07.11.2022 directed the S.P., Morena to explain as to why the police witnesses are not appearing before the Trial Court, thereafter it appears that S.P. issued show cause notice to SDO(P) also as no report was ever given by him to S.P. Thus, it is clear that although S.P., Morena had given a direction to SDO(P) to submit his report in crime control meeting held in the month of September, 2022 and October, 2022 but did not take any action against SDO(P), Morena for not submitting any report. Thus, it appears that in the monthly crime control meeting, S.P., Morena was not actually monitoring the non-service of summons/bailable warrants/warrants of arrest issued against the police personnel, but was merely completing formality by writing letters to SDO(P) to submit the report and SDO(P) was in its turn was sitting idle and even the S.P., Morena did not take action against the concerning SDO(P). They woke up only after order dated 11.11.2022 was passed which reads as under:-

Shri Madhukar Kulshreshtha, Advocate for applicant.

Shri C.P. Singh, Panel Lawyer for State.

Shri Pawan Devnani, Advocate for complainant.

It is submitted by counsel for State that in compliance of order dated 07.11.2022, the Superintendent of Police, Morena has filed the response.

The same is not on record.

Office to verify and place it on record.

For the convenience of this Court, Counsel for State has provided a copy of the response submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Morena.

The reply submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Morena is not satisfactory. The reply is completely silent with regard to the steps taken by the Superintendent of Police, Morena to ensure the service of summons/bailable warrants/warrants as well as the appearance of police witnesses. The reply is completely silent about the instruction issued by the Superintendent of Police, Morena in monthly crime control meeting.

Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Morena is directed to file the minutes of the crime control meeting held in the month of August, September and October, 2022 to show that he had taken note of the issuance of summons/bailable warrants/warrants issued in this case or not.

List this case on 14.11.2022.

5. It is really surprising that first status report was filed on 10.11.2022 and in the said compliance report, there is no mention about the negligence shown by the SDO(P) or about his conduct of directing the SDO(P) to scrutinize the cases on individual basis. Only when the S.P., Morena was directed to explain about the steps which he had taken in the crime control meeting, the officers woke up and immediately on 12.11.2022 the SDO(P) submitted his report to the S.P., Morena. This conduct of S.P., Morena is not appreciable. The police must realize that filing of the charge-sheet is not an end of their duty. The police must realize that the charge-sheet is nothing but is a mere opinion formed by the Investigating Officer and unless and until the charges are proved by the prosecution by examining the witnesses, the duty of the Investigating Agency would not come to an end. This Court in the case of Shambhu @ Shimbhu Lodhi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 28.09.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.45036/2022 has