The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the Director General of Police to immediately transfer a Head Constable accused of rape, observing that he was attempting to influence and manipulate the investigation process.

The Court also allowed the police to take the accused constable into custody.

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, while dismissing the constable's plea to quash the FIR registered against him, strongly criticized the conduct of the police in the matter. He noted that the FIR was filed only under pressure from the District Magistrate, despite the serious nature of the allegations.

The Court pointed out that the police provided a misleading explanation for the delay in registering the FIR—claiming it was due to the absence of the complainant's mother—when in fact the delay was caused by police inaction. Justice Ahluwalia remarked that the police should have cited their own non-cooperation as the real reason for the delay.

"It is clear that the applicant is still playing an influential role and is attempting to manipulate the investigation. When facing a serious allegation of rape, the police were expected to act in a free and fair manner, but they failed miserably," the Court observed. Consequently, the Court vacated its earlier interim order dated 03.01.2019 and permitted the police to take the accused into custody.

The case stems from an allegation that the petitioner, a Head Constable, raped the prosecutrix in January 2018. However, police did not initially register an FIR. In the meantime, in February 2018, the constable's daughter filed a complaint alleging eve-teasing by the prosecutrix’s husband. Subsequent inquiries by a Sub-Divisional Officer and an Additional SP both concluded that the rape allegations were false, yet these reports were neither provided to the complainant nor submitted for judicial scrutiny, as required under law.

The Court emphasized that under Section 157 of the CrPC, any police finding suggesting a complaint is false must be forwarded to the complainant and the Magistrate for judicial scrutiny. Retaining such reports internally, as was done in this case, undermines judicial oversight and could lead to police overreach.

It also came to light that the petitioner had access to these internal reports—an indication of his influence within the department. The Court noted that these reports had not been disclosed through any official channel such as the Right to Information Act.

Rejecting the constable’s argument that the FIR was a counterblast to his daughter's complaint, the Court instead concluded that it was his daughter’s FIR that appeared to be retaliatory in nature, intended to intimidate the prosecutrix.

Moreover, the Court found the police explanation for the year-long delay in lodging the FIR—that the complainant's mother was not available—implausible and reflective of an attempt to shield the accused. It was also noted that the constable had failed to cooperate with the investigation, including refusing to provide a blood sample when directed.

In view of the ongoing influence exercised by the accused, the Court directed his immediate transfer to another part of the state. It also left it open for the authorities to initiate disciplinary action under Rules 9 and 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Case Title: Prakash Pawaiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Misc. Criminal Case No. 50860 of 2018