IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

WP No. 49445 of 2025

(GABBAR BARETHA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )

Dated :06-01-2026

Shri Pallav Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri S.S. Kushwaha, Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1

to 3/State.

It was submitted by Shri Kushwaha that today State has filed

status report. However, by that time copy of status report was not available on record. Accordingly, a query was put to Shri Pallav Tripathi as to whether he is satisfied with the manner of investigation/enquiry which is being done by the Police Officers. It was submitted by Shri Tripathi that notices of this writ petition were issued on 17/12/2025 and the status report has been filed on 6/1/2026 and affidavit was prepared on 5/1/2026, but this status report does not contain information about any action which was taken by the

Investigating Officer after 29/11/2025.

2. Accordingly, Shri Kushwaha was directed to verify the

aforesaid fact. After going through the status report which was prepared on 5/1/2026 and filed on 6/1/2026, it was fairly conceded that the status report does not contain anything about steps taken by the Investigating

Officer after 29/12/2025.

3. Since the status report was completely vague and misleading,

therefore, Shri Kushwaha was directed to keep the Investigating Officer present in Court along with case diary. Although Shri Kushwaha had sought atleast time of one hour to do the needful, but looking to the fact that minor girl is missing and a habeas corpus petition is pending and the police department is deliberately hiding certain facts by not filing appropriate and up-to-date status report, as well as, looking to the distance of Police Station Purani Chavani from High Court Building, 30 minutes time was granted and Shri Kushwaha was requested to inform the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, just within 3-4 minutes Shri Kushwaha re-entered in the Courtroom along with one Police Officer who was of the rank of Sub Inspector, but was not having any name- plate on his uniform. Since identity of said officer was hidden by him, therefore, a specific question was put to the said Officer as to whether display of name-plate on outer outfit is part of uniform or not. He immediately started removing his thermal coat in the Court itself and submitted that his name-plate is affixed on his inner shirt. The conduct of said Sub Inspector in removing the thermal coat in the Court itself was shocking.

4. Be that whatever it may be.

5. This Court tried to initially ignore the said conduct of the Sub Inspector because this Court did not want to dilute the subject matter of this petition. An impression was also given that the said Sub Inspector is the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, he was directed to point out from the case diary about the steps taken by him. He referred to various case diary proceedings and submitted that some steps which were taken by the Investigating Officer after 17/12/2025. In order to verify the diary proceedings, it was enquired from the said Sub Inspector as to whether corresponding entry in the Roznamacha Sanha is required or not, then he submitted that the Roznamacha Sanha is required to be prepared prior to leaving the police station for conducting any investigation and it also must contain the steps taken by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Accordingly, in order to cross-check the correctness of diary proceedings, the Sub Inspector, who disclosed his name as Deshraj Singh, was directed to show Roznamacha Sanha, then he started looking at another police personnel who was of the rank of Head Constable and was standing at the back of the Court. This conduct of the said Sub Inspector was surprising because if the enquiry/Investigating Officer is dependent upon the information to be supplied by his subordinates, then it raises serious concern about the ability of the Investigating Officer. When it was enquired as to why he is looking at the Head Constable, then for the