'Are Law Enacted By Parliament Binding On Maharashtra Police?' Bombay High Court Asks DGP After Shoddy Probe

Narsi Benwal

9 July 2025 8:53 PM IST

  • Are Law Enacted By Parliament Binding On Maharashtra Police? Bombay High Court Asks DGP After Shoddy Probe

    The Bombay High Court has ordered the Director General of Maharashtra Police to explain on oath whether the provisions of the law enacted by the Parliament are binding on the State police force or if the same are only to be retained in the books of law.A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil has asked the DGP to file a detailed reply explaining his stand on the issue....

    The Bombay High Court has ordered the Director General of Maharashtra Police to explain on oath whether the provisions of the law enacted by the Parliament are binding on the State police force or if the same are only to be retained in the books of law.

    A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil has asked the DGP to file a detailed reply explaining his stand on the issue. 

    "We therefore direct the Director General of Police to explain on oath whether the provisions of law enacted by the Parliament of India are binding and mandatory on the police personnel in the State of Maharashtra or those are to be retained only in the books of law. So also whether the Circular/ directions issued by the office of Director General of Police, Maharashtra State are binding on all police force," the bench said in the order passed on July 7.

    If the answer to the said questions are in affirmative, the bench directed the DGP to take necessary action against the concerned Investigating Officer for committing breach of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and so also violating the various Circulars issued by the office of the DGP. The said reply be filed within a period of two weeks, the bench ordered.

    "We direct the Director General of Police not to delegate its power to any subordinate Officer while filing the reply. We reserve our right to take necessary action against the concerned Investigating Officer for breach of the provisions of law if deem necessary and required, after we peruse the Affidavit of the DGP," the bench ordered.

    This comes after the bench found shoddy probe in an economic offence wherein the investigating officer did not complete even the basics of the investigation despite the fact that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged in June 2024, nearly 13 months ago. 

    The bench noted from the case papers that the case diary was not maintained as per the mandatory norms prescribed under the CrPC. The judges pointed out that time and again the very issue has been raised by the various division benches of the High Court. The bench further pointed out that even the DGP has issued circulars from time to time directing the police authorities to adhere to section 172 of the CrPC and maintain a proper case diary for each case. 

    The office of the Director General of Police has issued Circulars on December 6, 2018, September 16, 2021 and February 12, 2024, and has repeatedly directed all the police personnel in the State of Maharashtra to maintain case diary as per Section 172 of the CrPC, the bench noted. 

    According to us, undoubtedly all the police personnel in the State of Maharashtra 'must' follow the mandate of law as per the provisions of the CrPC, so also the directions issued by office of the DGP, the bench said.

    "In our earlier order, we have observed that, the directions issued by office of the DGP are not percolated to the lower rank of police personnel and they are blatantly violating the directions issued by the top most Authority of the Police Department. This is unconscionable and unpardonable. It appears to us that, in a disciplined police force, the police personnel themselves are not following the discipline and are not following the mandatory directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police," the bench remarked. 

    With these observations, the bench adjourned the hearing till July 21 for the DGP to file his detailed reply. 

    Appearance:

    Aenior Advocate Ashok Mundargi along with Advocates Abinash Pradhan, Garima Agrawal and Yash Dedhia instructed by Wadia Ghandy & Co. appeared for First Petitioner. 

    Advocates Mihir Gheewala and Apoorva Kulkarni instructed by SSB Legal and Advisory appeared for Second Petitioner. 

    Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute represented the State.

    Senior Advocate Girish Kulkarni and Advocate Mrunmai Kulkarni represented the Complainant. 

    Case Title: Sorabh Kamal Jain vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 2795 of 2024)

    Click Here To Read/Download Order 


    Next Story