MP High Court imposes Rs 5 lakh fine on Bhopal DIG for suppressing evidence in murder probe

Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) against the trial court’s order which rejected applicant’s application for production of record where the Police, in spite of court’s order failed to preserve the CDR and mobile location records, a single-judge bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., took strong exception to the conduct of the police authorities an directed to initiate contempt proceeding and departmental inquiry against the then Superintendent of Police (SP) (who is currently posted as DIG, Bhopal). The Court further imposed Rs 5 lakh fine on DIG for suppressing evidence.

Factual Matrix

In the instant matter, the applicant is facing trial for serious offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307, 336, and 302 of the IPC relating to the alleged murder of the deceased and an attempt to murder the complainant. The core defense of the applicant rests on the claim that at the time of the incident, i.e., on 24-09-2017 at around 3—4 p.m., the deceased and complainant were not present at the crime scene but were instead at Amayan, District Bhind.

On 13-08-2018, the applicant filed an application seeking preservation of CDRs and location data of specific mobile numbers to support his alibi. The trial court allowed the application via its order dated 07-09-2018 and directed the preservation of the data. A subsequent application was filed on 20-09-2018 to ensure compliance, and the SHO submitted that action was taken for preservation.

However, in 2024, the applicant moved an application under Section 233 CrPC for production of the said records. The police responded that the data could not be produced as it was over two years old. The trial court, relying on this assertion, dismissed the application on 18-09-2024.

Moot Point

1. Whether the non-production of the call data records and location details, despite earlier court orders, justifies adverse inference or action against the responsible officers?

2. Whether the actions/inaction of the then SP and SHO amounted to deliberate suppression and obstruction of justice?

3. Are compensation and departmental proceedings warranted against the erring officers?

Court’s Observation

The Court noted that the then SHO had informed the Court that action for preservation was taken, yet failed to pursue or retrieve the data, relying instead on the false presumption that no data was ever received. The Court stated that the then SP, Datia had already received the call details and location data on his official email on 17-09-2018 but failed to disclose this to the Court, thereby “playing fraud on the Court.”

The Court termed the police’s conduct as “a shocking state of affairs” and slammed the “casual manner” of the trial court in accepting the police’s claims without seeking accountability. The Court found the actions of the then SP and SHO to be “mala fide” and in breach of the applicant’s fundamental right to fair investigation and trial. The Court also sharply criticised the repeated misconduct of the then SP referring to previous findings against him in Deepak v. State of MP,¹ which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

“It is really shocking that… lives of several persons including their family members is at stake and… the then SP Datia was involved in his mala fide action to show undue favour to one party.”

Court’s Decision

Citing UT of J&K v. Abdul Rehman Khandey,² the Court stressed the importance of holding delinquent officers accountable. The Court directed the then SP to deposit ₹5,00,000/- as compensation for violating the applicant’s fundamental rights and the compensation amount is to be disbursed by the trial court to either the complainant or the accused, depending on the outcome of the trial.

The Court directed the trial court to initiate contempt proceedings against the then SP for suppressing material evidence. The Court instructed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue a chargesheet against the then SP for deliberately interfering with the investigation. The Court further directed the Registrar to ensure a copy of the present order is placed in the service record of Shri Mayank Awasthi, presently posted as DIG, Bhopal.

[Ramu v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No. 4578 of 2025, Decided on 16-04-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Shri Atul Gupta, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Ankur Mody, Additional Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondent/State and Shri Mayank Awasthi, the then SP, Datia.

Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Shri Yatendra Singh Bhadoriya, the then SHO, P.S. Deepar, District Datia.

Shri Pratip Visoriya, Counsel for the complainant.

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE