The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has asserted that a police officer’s failure to conduct a proper and fair investigation into a suspicious death, particularly by not visiting the actual scene of the incident, not drawing a spot panchanama there, and not seizing crucial evidence despite being aware of the location of the incident, constitutes a prima facie case of disobeying the law under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court clarified that the indispensable ingredients of Section 166 IPC are met when a public servant acts in disobedience of legal directions concerning the conduct of his duties. In such circumstances, where the allegations in the FIR and the supporting material disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and suggest an attempt to shield suspects, the High Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
Quashing such proceedings against a police officer would be against the public interest and would deplete public confidence in the criminal justice system. Therefore, the officer must face trial to determine the veracity of the allegations, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke noted specific failures, such as the spot panchanama being drawn at the hospital’s I.C.U. unit, despite the deceased being brought dead and the death having occurred at his in-laws’ house. A significant lapse observed was the failure to seize the rope by which the deceased allegedly hanged himself.
The Bench observed that even after recording statements from the deceased’s wife and in-laws which revealed that the death occurred at their house, the applicant made no effort to visit the actual spot, conduct a panchanama there, or recover material articles. The Bench emphasized that when a senior police officer faces serious allegations of manipulating an investigation, a liberal view should not be taken, as it is a matter of grave public concern and sends a wrong signal to society.
The Bench reminded the applicant of the police’s duty to protect and uphold the law and the motto of the Maharashtra State Police, “Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya” (To Protect Good and To Punish The Evil). Accordingly, the Bench concluded that the applicant’s failure to collect all possible evidence demonstrated a lack of fairness and a dereliction of his duty.
Briefly, the case pertains to a criminal application filed by a Police Sub-Inspector, seeking to quash a FIR, which was registered against him under Sections 302, 306, 166, 166-A, and 167 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The matter originated from the suspicious death of Vijay Govindrao Gadve at his in-laws’ house, which was initially registered as an accidental death, following a report from Dr. Sneha Mankar of Criti Care Hospital. The postmortem report, however, indicated the cause of death as hanging.
The deceased’s mother lodged a report alleging that her son was murdered by his wife and in-laws. Due to police inaction, she approached the High Court, where it was observed that the police had sided with the suspects and directed the Superintendent of Police to appoint a Special Investigating Officer and register an offence against all suspects, including the investigating officer.
The applicant, who had conducted the inquiry into the accidental death, was accused of ignoring material evidence, failing to conduct a spot panchanama at the actual scene of the crime (the in-laws’ house), and not seizing the rope used in the incident, thereby committing offences under Sections 166, 166A, and 167 of the IPC.
Appearances:
Advocate R.M. Daga, for the Applicant
APP, N.B. Jawade, for the State
