High Court Slams Police Inaction, Orders Inquiry and Compensation in Murder Case

Gwalior , Madhya Pradesh – The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior , presided over by Justice G. S.Ahluwalia , has taken a stern stance against police officials for their dereliction of duty in a murder case, ordering a departmental inquiry, compensation for the accused, and initiation of contempt proceedings against a former Superintendent of Police. The case arises from a Misc. Criminal Case No. 4578 of 2025, titled Ramu @ Manvendra Singh Gurjar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others .

Background: Delayed Data Preservation and Alleged Police Misconduct

The case revolves around the murder of Kailash and an attempt to murder the complainant, for which Ramu @ Manvendra Singh Gurjar is facing trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 336, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused had applied to the trial court to preserve call detail records (CDR) and mobile locations of several phone numbers, arguing that these records would prove the prosecution witnesses were not present at the scene of the crime.

On September 7, 2018, the trial court ordered the police to preserve this crucial digital evidence. While the then Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Deepar, Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya , initially reported compliance, it later emerged that the then Superintendent of Police (SP) Datia , Mayank Awasthi , had received the data on his official email ID as early as September 17, 2018, but failed to disclose or act upon it. When the accused later applied for the production of these records under Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the police claimed the data was unavailable due to being older than two years, a statement that has now been proven false.

Court's Observations: "Shocking State of Affairs" and "Fraud on the Court"

Justice Ahluwalia expressed strong displeasure at the conduct of the police, labeling it a "shocking state of affairs." The court noted that despite the trial court's clear directive to preserve the data and subsequent assurances of compliance, the then SP Datia , Mayank Awasthi , deliberately suppressed the fact that the data had already been received.

The judgment highlights the severity of this inaction:

> "Therefore, it is clear that on 01.10.2018, Shri Mayank Awasthi , the then Superintendent of Police, Datia , deliberately suppressed the call details and details of locations of mobile numbers and SIM numbers from the Court which were already directed by the Court to be preserved. Thus, Shri Mayank Awasthi , the then Superintendent of Police, Datia has played fraud on the Court by getting a wrong reply filed on 01.10.2018..."

The court further criticized the trial court for its "casual manner" in accepting the police's explanation for non-production of records, emphasizing that the trial process aims to uncover the truth, and suppression of documents undermines the justice system.

Orders and Directions: Accountability Ensured

In a decisive move to ensure accountability, the High Court issued the following key directions:

Contempt Proceedings Against Former SP: The Trial Court has been directed to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Shri Mayank Awasthi , the then Superintendent of Police, Datia , for deliberately withholding the crucial digital evidence and misleading the court.

Departmental Enquiry: The Director General of Police (DGP) of Madhya Pradesh has been ordered to initiate a departmental enquiry against Mayank Awasthi for violating the court order and interfering with the investigation. The charge-sheet must be issued within one month.

Compensation: Shri Mayank Awasthi has been directed to deposit ₹5,00,000 as compensation with the High Court within one month, failing which recovery and contempt proceedings will be initiated. This compensation will be disbursed by the Trial Court to the complainant or accused party based on the trial outcome.

Production of Records: The present Superintendent of Police, Datia , is directed to file the complete CDR and location records before the Trial Court within 10 days.

Trial Court Order Set Aside: The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order dated 18.09.2024, which had rejected the accused's application for record production.

Observations on SHO and Present SHO: While not directly indicting the then SHO Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya , the court left it to the Trial Court to inquire further into his role. Similarly, the Trial Court is given liberty to consider action against the present SHO, Amar Singh Gurjar , for submitting a false reply regarding the unavailability of records.

Implications: Upholding Fair Trial and Police Responsibility

This judgment underscores the High Court's commitment to ensuring fair trial and holding police accountable for their actions and inactions. It sends a strong message that dereliction of duty and suppression of evidence will not be tolerated, especially in serious criminal cases. The court's proactive measures, including ordering compensation and departmental inquiry, aim to rectify the injustice and ensure the integrity of the judicial process in the case. The direction to initiate contempt proceedings further emphasizes the gravity of the former SP's misconduct in disregarding a court order. This case will be closely watched for its impact on police accountability and the right to a fair trial in Madhya Pradesh.