23 Jun 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2026:MPHC-IND:16427; 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 230
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0028Indore, Madhya PradeshJudgment 23 June 2026
Ravindra Singh Gurjar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
On 15.06.2023, while Inspector Ravindra Singh Gurjar was SHO of Vijay Nagar Police Station, Indore, four youths picked up over suspected gambling were kept at the station; the santari register recorded a 16-year-old boy as aged 16, yet he was illegally detained past midnight and released only after subordinates took Rs. 10,000 from the families. A departmental enquiry proved supervisory negligence and Juvenile violations, leading to a major penalty of demotion to Sub-Inspector for three years, confirmed in appeal and revision. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) dismissed his writ petition, holding the enquiry fair, the charges fully supported, and the demotion proportionate to his command responsibility. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 23 June 2026 in WP No. 45186 of 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Jai Kumar Pillai, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 2 police personnel, namely: Ravindra Singh Gurjar (Inspector (SHO)); Sub-Inspector, Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore.
- Register number
- MP 09 CW 0030
- Case reference
- WP No. 45186 of 2025 / 2026:MPHC-IND:16427; 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 230
- Court and date
- Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Jai Kumar Pillai, J.), 23 June 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Ravindra Singh Gurjar (Inspector (SHO)); Sub-Inspector, Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the JJ Act, 2015
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Looking at the overall facts and the settled law, this Court finds that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly. The charges of negligence are fully supported by the preliminary inquiry report, and the impugned orders do not suffer from any …” (at para 39)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 23 June 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“Looking at the overall facts and the settled law, this Court finds that the departmental enquiry was conducted fairly. The charges of negligence are fully supported by the preliminary inquiry report, and the impugned orders do not suffer from any …” (para 39)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.