In a powerful indictment of police conduct, a court in Panipat has exposed a disturbing pattern of non-compliance, record fabrication, and a concerted effort to protect officers accused of illegal detention and custodial torture. Judicial Magistrate First-Class (JMIC) Aditya Jain delivered a scathing order, pulling up senior officials including the Panipat Superintendent of Police (SP) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Headquarters.
A "Highly Suspicious" Police Inquiry
The case came before the court through a plea filed by the wife of a man who alleged he was illegally detained and tortured in custody. The court, examining the police's own inquiry report into the allegations, found it deeply flawed. JMIC Aditya Jain described the police version as "highly suspicious," stating that the investigation seemed designed not to find the truth but to "reach the conclusion first and collect the reasons later."
The judge was particularly critical of the probe led by the Panipat DSP (HQ), calling his report a "mere paper formality" filled with inconsistencies and reflecting a "policy of denial." The court noted that crucial evidence was ignored, including directives to preserve CCTV footage from the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA)-3 office where the detention allegedly occurred, produce DVRs, mobile tower location data, and station diary entries.
Fabricated Records and Selective Evidence
The court's order details shocking attempts to manipulate official records. The daily diary (roznamcha) entries submitted by the police were found to be "ante-dated, vague and lacking sanctity." The judge observed that these entries appeared on loose sheets instead of photocopies from a bound register, lacked page numbers, violated the mandatory carbon-copy procedure, and bore contradictory dates. One entry for October 24 was signed on October 28.
This, the judge said, "prima facie suggests fabrication aimed at absolving delinquent officers." Furthermore, the court accused the police of being "selective" in presenting evidence. While relevant CCTV footage from the CIA office was never provided, less pertinent footage from the district court premises was conveniently produced.
Senior Officers in the Line of Fire
The reprimand extended to the highest levels of the district police. The court found that the report submitted by the Panipat SP was "nothing more than a verbatim reproduction" of the DSP's faulty findings. The SP prepared his report only after the court verbally inquired about its status. JMIC Jain termed it an "eye wash," suggesting the SP seemed either "unconcerned" or preoccupied with other matters he deemed more important.
Taking a firm stand, the court has directed the Inspector General of the Karnal Range to register a First Information Report (FIR) against all officers prima facie involved in the case and to appoint an "independent senior officer" to conduct a fresh, impartial investigation.
Court as the Guardian of Fundamental Rights
In a strongly worded conclusion, the court underscored its constitutional duty. "This court cannot turn a blind eye when the shield of authority is used as a sword," the order stated. It clarified that while police have the right to investigate serious crimes, it must be done "only as per the procedure established by law, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution." The judge affirmed the court's role as the "watchful protector and the guardian of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen."
As a corrective measure, the Panipat SP has been directed to brief all subordinate officers on Supreme Court guidelines governing arrest and custodial conduct. The court warned that any further non-compliance would invite "stricter coercive measures." This case highlights a critical judicial intervention against alleged police overreach and procedural violations in Haryana.
