Criminal breach of trust FIR: High Court stays disciplinary action against Jamnagar police inspector

Chavda had moved the HC seeking quashing of the Sessions Court order. The petition contended that the disciplinary action ordered by the Sessions Judge while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of the accused was an “obvious case of judicial overreach”.

Chavda’s petition stated that the Sessions Judge had served a show cause notice and then ordered a disciplinary inquiry against the police inspector for lodging an FIR against UP-based Manju Pande. The FIR was lodged in an alleged case of criminal breach of trust, based on the June 2024 complainant of Bhavin Mange, who had approached the Jamnagar City A Division police station claiming that Pande had defaulted on a payment of Rs 21.91 lakh against the supply of brass goods since January 2020.

In her anticipatory bail application before the Jamnagar Sessions Court, filed in February this year, Pande contended that “the dispute was only of a civil nature and the complainant had tried to invoke a criminal process”, alleging that the police officers “had become recovery agents of time-barred dues”.

The second Additional Sessions Judge of Jamnagar on March 11 issued a show cause notice to PI Chavda, asking him to file a reply as to why necessary action should not be ordered against him “for putting criminal law in motion in a time-barred civil dispute”.

The police inspector submitted his reply on March 17 and the order in the bail application was passed on April 9, with the Sessions Judge directing disciplinary proceedings against the inspector. The Sessions Judge also directed the state government to submit a primary compliance report within a month and final compliance report within a period of six months.

In his petition, Chavda informed the court that as part of the preliminary inquiry, the police had gone to the residential address of the accused in Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh). However, the accused had allegedly shifted residence within UP as “police from other units had also come looking for her”. Following the probe in UP, the Jamnagar City A division police station registered an FIR on January 18 under Sections of the Indian Penal Code for criminal breach of trust, this year, and the accused was served a notice to remain present before the police at the Sen Paschim Para Police station in Kanpur on January 23, where “she had been questioned”. Thereafter, as the police also served upon her a notice to remain present at the Jamnagar City A Division police station, she did not appear and instead, filed for anticipatory bail in February.

Chavda’s lawyer Utkarsh Dave submitted to the court, “If there has been any lapse on the part of the officer, the court can only place the facts before the Disciplinary Authority for its consideration”.

“It cannot direct the Disciplinary Authority to initiate any particular action against the erring official… Similarly, it cannot call for a report from the Disciplinary Authority and cannot act as a supervisory authority to the disciplinary authority… Moreover, the Learned court has passed the order in an anticipatory bail application; the investigations are not yet complete. Charge-sheet has not been filed and trials have not commenced… Despite this, the Learned court has conducted a mini-trial…” the lawyer stated before the court.

Stating that the order of the Sessions Judge is “obviously a case of judicial overreach”, the petition also contended that “no misconduct can be alleged” against Chavda as the chargesheet was yet to be filed.

During the arguments, advocate Dave also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in a 2014 case. Dave said, “It was a case, in which, the SC had ruled in favour of a petitioner seeking police action and stated that the police are required to register an FIR as soon as they receive information about a cognizable offense. Failure to do so is considered a violation of legal and constitutional obligations and shall invite contempt… The petitioner was only doing his duty as per the law.”

In the oral order delivered on May 2, Gujarat High Court Justice Divyesh Joshi considered the argument which placed reliance on the SC case and said, “…as per the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts, it is observed that at the time of deciding the bail application, the court concerned has to consider as to whether bail should be granted or not and the court concerned need not have to enter into the arena of bail application by issuing direction for initiation of inquiry against the concerned IO and thus, the learned Judge concerned has acted against the settled proposition of law… therefore, prayed that the said order is required to be stayed.”

The court order issued notice upon respondents and also granted “ad-interim relief till then” to the petitioner by straying the disciplinary proceedings against him.

The next hearing in the matter has been slated for June 30.