Rajasthan High Court Directs DGP To Draft Policy For Separation Of Powers Of Police's Investigation And Law & Order Wings To Curb Chronic Delays
The court slammed police for "casual" excuses like IPL duties for decade-long delays and directed the State to draft a policy for specialized investigative units.
Expressing "pain and shock" over a criminal investigation pending for more than a decade, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State Government to separate the police's investigative functions from its law-and-order duties.
The Bench observed that investigative efficiency is frequently compromised because officers are overburdened with peripheral tasks like VIP security, festival management, and sports events.
The Court ordered the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police (DGP) to draft a formal policy to create two distinct wings—starting with urban areas of over 10 lakh residents—to ensure that criminal probes are no longer sidelined by administrative protocols.
The Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “Therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to issue directions to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan; and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Director General of Police to draft a policy for separation of powers of police by constituting two different wings, i.e., one for maintaining law and order and another for investigating the case registered with the concerned Police Station until a legislation is introduced in this regard.”
Advocate Abhishek Bhardwaj appeared for the Petitioner, Senior Advocate Major R.P. Singh appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts of the Case
Both the complainant and the accused filed these connected criminal miscellaneous petitions before the Court. They sought specific orders regarding F.I.R., which was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 120-B of the IPC (dealing with cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy).
The complainant, Shilpacharya Vishwakarma Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, filed a petition, praying the Court to direct the police to conduct a fair, transparent, and speedy investigation into the matter. On the other hand, the accused, Jitendra Meena, filed another petition praying the Court to quash the F.I.R. and all legal proceedings arising from it.
Contention of the Parties
The Society argued that the F.I.R. was lodged in 2014, yet no charge-sheet was filed even after 11 years. They pointed out that multiple police reports found the accused, Jitendra and Kalyan Matsya, guilty of forgery and cheating. They claimed the police ignored several Court orders to finish the probe, giving "casual" excuses like being busy with VIP security and festivals. The Society stated the accused were involved in 15 other cases and that forged stamps and land titles were recovered from them.
The accused argued that the land belonged to his father and that the Society forged an "Agreement to Sell" to grab it. He contended that the matter was a civil property dispute, not a criminal one, and was already pending in a Civil Court. He argued that a previous F.I.R. on the same issue was already quashed, so this "second F.I.R." was illegal. He claimed that a 11-year-long investigation violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and asked the Court to cancel the case.
Observations of the Court
The Court refused to quash the F.I.R. against Jitendra Meena. It held that the allegations show a serious crime has been committed, and the High Court cannot interfere in the investigation at this stage. The Court noted that since the victims in the 2009 and 2014 cases are different, the 2014 F.I.R. is valid.
The Court expressed "pain and shock" that the investigation remained pending for 11 years. It rejected the Station House Officer's (SHO) excuses—such as being busy with IPL matches, festivals, and VIP visits—calling them "unsatisfactory" and "casual."
“Before parting with this order, this Court feels pain to observe that the instant case is a unique one where FIR was registered more than a decade back, i.e., in the year 2014 and still the investigation is lying pending and the conclusion/report of investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has not been submitted before the competent Court of law inspite of repeated directions issued by this Court…It is quite shocking and surprising on the part of the Investigating Agency to keep pending investigation of the matter for an indefinite period”, it said.
The Court said that it noticed and felt on various occasions that the investigation of several criminal cases could not be completed expeditiously and the same have remained pending for a considerably long time because in many cases, the same Investigating Officer, who has been assigned the task to investigate the matter has also been assigned other duties of maintaining law and order in the concerned area. Under these circumstances, it becomes very difficult for such Investigating Officers to discharge both the duties simultaneously.
It ordered, “In discharge of its constitutional duties, this Court deems it just and proper to observe that certain directions are required to be issued to the State Government for separation of two wings, i.e., one wing for investigation and the other wing for maintaining the law and order, so that no delay occurs in conducting the investigation and arriving at its conclusion…The Investigating police shall be separated from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people. There should be full co-ordination between these two wings. The separation, to start with, may be effected in towns/urban areas which have a population of ten lakhs or more and gradually extended to smaller towns/urban areas as well.”
The Court observed that investigations fail because the same officers are burdened with both solving crimes and managing "law and order" (protests, VIP security, etc.). To fix this, the Court issued the following directions: The Rajasthan Government must create two separate wings within the Police Department: 1. Investigation Wing: Dedicated solely to solving crimes and filing charge-sheets. 2. Law and Order Wing: Dedicated to maintaining public peace and security. It said that this separation should start in cities with a population of over 10 lakhs and gradually expand to smaller towns.
The Court cited the landmark Prakash Singh & Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 judgment, wherein several directions have been issued to the Central Government as well as the State Governments by the Hon’ble Apex Court for framing of appropriate legislation, policy etc. for separation of investigation from the police wing for maintaining law and order.
The Court directed the IO of the present case to conclude the investigation of the instant FIR expeditiously, as early as possible, without any further delay within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and submit his report of conclusion under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
The Commissioner of Police and the Additional Commissioner of Police (East), Jaipur were also directed to monitor the investigation of the impugned FIR and instruct the concerned SHO to conclude the investigation of impugned FIR within the above stipulated time fixed by the Court and ensure compliance of the directions issued by the Court, failing which appropriate action would also be taken against them for non-compliance of the order.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition with the aforesaid directions.
Cause Title: Jitendra Meena v. State of Rajasthan [Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:10953]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Abhishek Bhardwaj, Advocate Aayush Malik.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Major R.P. Singh, Public Prosecutor Jitendra Singh Rathore, Public Prosecutor Narendra Singh Dhakar, Advocate Mahesh Gupta, Advocate Rituraj Kaur Bhullar, Advocate Shivangi Mayaramka, Advocate Abhiraj Singh Deval.