Introduction:

In the case titled Prakash Pawaiya Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Misc. Criminal Case No. 50860 Of 2018, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, addressed serious allegations against a head constable accused of rape. The court not only dismissed the constable’s plea to quash the FIR but also directed the Director General of Police to transfer him immediately to prevent any further manipulation of the investigation.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, a head constable, sought to quash the FIR filed against him, alleging that the complaint was a counterblast to an earlier FIR lodged by his daughter against the complainant’s husband for eve-teasing. He contended that the allegations were false and motivated by personal vendetta.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The prosecution argued that the FIR was lodged only under pressure from the District Magistrate, highlighting the police’s reluctance to act against their own. They pointed out that the police had failed to mention the real reason for the delay in lodging the FIR, which was their non-cooperation, and instead falsely claimed that the delay was due to the absence of the complainant’s mother. Furthermore, the prosecution emphasized that the petitioner had access to inquiry reports that were not officially shared, indicating his influential role in the police department.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Ahluwalia observed that the petitioner was exerting undue influence over the investigation, attempting to manipulate outcomes in his favor. The court criticized the police for their failure to act impartially and for providing false reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR. It was noted that the petitioner had access to confidential inquiry reports, which should not have been available to him, further indicating his manipulation of the process.

The court directed the Director General of Police to transfer the petitioner to another part of the state immediately to prevent any further influence on the ongoing investigation. Additionally, the court vacated the interim order dated 03.01.2019 and granted the police the liberty to take the petitioner into custody. The court also suggested that disciplinary action be considered against the petitioner under Rules 9 and 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.