Prakash Agrawal v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is still pending in ST No.419/2013 before the Sessions Court at Jabalpur and further, one of the accused persons therein namely Ashok Kumar Malaram is still absconding.

3. It is the case of petitioner that to show that the petitioner was illegally handcuffed under orders of a superior officer of police, he had filed an application under Order 16 Rule 10 and 20 CPC read with Section 151 thereof seeking to produce on record the case diary of investigation of crime so that the order of superior officer of police to put the petitioner under handcuff would have been brought on record. The said application was allowed on 12.12.2024 and the trial Court directed the police authorities to produce case diary of investigation of Crime No.252/2012 of Police Station Omti, District Jabalpur.

4. However, in response to the said order later on the police authorities came out with a plea that the case diary in question has already been destroyed by the Police Station on 10.02.2024 and the proceedings for destruction of case diary was produced before the trial Court, which led the petitioner to seek affidavit of concerned responsible officer of the police in the matter of destruction of case diary, which was turned down by the trial Court and now the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227.

5. It is the case of petitioner that by refusing to produce the case diary the respondents have destroyed a material piece of evidence, which is a criminal act in terms of Section 204 IPC/241 BNS, because it destroyed the material piece of evidence, which was relevant in the pending civil suit,

2

wherein the police authorities have appeared and had filed written statement way back in the year 2015 and even the criminal trial against other accused persons is pending and therefore, the destruction of case diary was not permissible as per Clause 703 of M.P. Police Regulations.

6. This Court had directed the police authorities during course of these proceedings to seek instructions that under what circumstances the case diary has been destroyed in response whereof an affidavit has been filed by CSP, Omti, District Jabalpur, namely Shri Sonu Kurmi mentioning therein in clear terms that the diary of Crime No.252/2012 was destroyed mistakenly and it was not meant to be destroyed. In para 10 of the affidavit, the following assertions have been made:-

"10. That, it is most respectfully submitted that due to the inadvertent mistake as the case was quashed in M.Cr.C. No.17642/2014 filed by the present petitioner, the same was under mistaken impression taken as that the entire case has been quashed and also the committee lost sight of the fact that there are 8 other co-accused against whom session trial still pending and it is only due to the aforesaid inadvertent error and bona-fide mistake, the case diary was destroyed, for that the answering respondent tenders unconditional apology"

7. The police authorities by filing the aforesaid affidavit before this Court have admitted that the committee has erroneously and mistakenly destroyed the case diary, because the authority was under impression that in petition under Section 482 the prosecution against all the accused persons has been quashed, whereas it was quashed only against the present petitioner and against eight other accused persons Sessions Trial was still pending and that was a bona fide mistake.

3

7. The relevant provision permitting destruction of case diaries is as per Clause 703 of M.P. Police Regulations, which is as under :-

"703. Record-Elimination of. The following registers shall be retained for the periods show:-

(1) Crime register (20 Years).

(2) Cash diaries of

(a) untraced murders for robbery (20 Years)

(b) untraced poisoning cases (20 Years)

(c) untraced professional types of burglary (20 Years)

(d) case diaries in which action under section 512, CRPC has been taken (20 Years)

(3) Cash book (10 Years)

(4) Ledger (10 Years)

(5) Other case diaries (10 Years) Exception.-Diaries of cases which are still pending owing to the accused having been declared a lunatic and unable to make his defense, may be retained for such further period as may seem necessary."

8. As per the aforesaid provision, there is an specific exception regarding diaries of cases, which are still pending and in respect of case diaries in which action under Section 512 Cr.P.C. has been taken, the time limit is 20 years. In this case not only the case is still pending firstly in the Sessions Trial and secondly a Civil Suit is pending, but thirdly one of the accused person has been declared absconder, which is an event in terms of section 512 Cr.P.C., 1898 corresponding to Section 299 Cr.P.C., 1973.

9. Counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that this amounts to destruction of evidence, which is a criminal offence under section 204 I.P.C./241 BNS.

4

10. The prayer made in the present petition is to call for an affidavit of the concerned officer of the police in the matter of destruction of case diary and to investigate into truth or otherwise of the declaration made by the police authorities.

11. As the affidavit has already been filed before this Court, therefore, this Court does not deem it fit to further proceed with the matter and leaves it open for the petitioner to raise all the contentions to be raised before the trial Court and the petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner would be at liberty to summon Shri Sonu Kurmi for cross-examination in the pending Civil Suit, on the affidavit filed before this Court. Certified copy of the said affidavit shall be taken on record by the Trial Court. The petitioner would be at liberty to summon teh original of the destruction proceedings before the Civil Court.

(ii) Based upon the cross-examination of Shri Sonu Kurmi, the petitioner would be at liberty to move appropriate application before the trial Court to issue appropriate directions in terms of Section 204 IPC.

(iii) The petitioner shall also be at liberty to pray before the trial Court to draw an adverse inference on account of unavailability of case diary, based upon the contents of cross-examination of Shri Sonu Kurmi.

(iv) The Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur is also directed to cause an enquiry into the intentions of the officials and circumstances under which a case diary wherein two judicial proceedings were pending, has been destroyed by violating the mandatory provisions of Clause 703 of Police Regulations.

12. Compliance report of para 11 (iv) above shall be filed before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks by the Superintendent of Police,

5

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE

Jabalpur. With these directions, petition is disposed of. rj

6