In a glaring example of procedural negligence, a police sub-inspector in Uttar Pradesh created national headlines by mistakenly identifying a sitting judge as an accused in a criminal case. This grave error, which involved Sub-Inspector Banwarilal, showcased an alarming lack of understanding of the basic tenets of criminal procedure and sparked widespread concern over police training and accountability.
The Blunder: When Law Enforcers Misread the Law
On March 23, 2025, what was expected to be a routine hearing at a local court in Uttar Pradesh turned into an unprecedented fiasco. Instead of executing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against the actual accused—Rajkumar alias Pappu—the serving officer shockingly initiated proceedings against the judge who had issued the order, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Nagma Khan.
Yes, you read that right. The police officer responsible for delivering the proclamation mistakenly wrote the name of CJM Nagma Khan as the accused and proceeded to locate her residence to serve the order—essentially launching a hunt for a judge instead of a fugitive.
What is Section 82 CrPC?
Section 82 of the CrPC allows the court to issue a proclamation against an individual if there’s credible reason to believe they are absconding or hiding to evade arrest. Once issued, the proclamation directs the accused to appear in court within a specified period, failing which further legal consequences may follow.
The proclamation is a formal legal step that comes after an arrest warrant has failed due to the accused being untraceable. It is a serious action, and executing it requires a clear understanding of both the legal order and the person it is directed toward.
Judge Turned ‘Accused’: A Comedy of Errors or Serious Lapse?
The situation turned from absurd to grave when the sub-inspector, in his written report to the court, stated that “accused Nagma Khan was not found at her residence” and sought directions from CJM Khan herself regarding further action against her!
Naturally, the court was stunned. In a strongly worded order, CJM Khan expressed deep concern, pointing out that the officer had displayed a “complete lack of basic knowledge” of criminal procedures.
“It is quite bizarre that the serving officer…has little to no idea of what was sent by this court, who exactly sent it and against whom,” the court stated.
Confusing NBW with Proclamation: A Fatal Error
The court also observed that Banwarilal had confused a proclamation with a non-bailable warrant (NBW)—two completely different legal tools. While an NBW allows the arrest of an accused, a proclamation under Section 82 is merely a summons to appear, usually after prior steps like warrants have failed.
The judge remarked:
“Without giving an inch of attention to the process, he first carelessly mentions the proclamation as an NBW and he then just wrote the name of the presiding officer (judge) quite blindly.”
Judiciary Slams Police Negligence
The Court took a firm stand against the “gross dereliction of duty” by the police sub-inspector, stating that such actions could threaten the fundamental rights to liberty guaranteed under the Constitution.
“A police officer serving process is supposed to exercise the highest level of care… If such negligent officials are made free to serve processes in such a blind form escaping consequences, they will run amok thus trampling upon precious rights,” the Court noted.
Legal Repercussions: Enquiry Ordered
Taking the matter seriously, the Court has directed the Inspector General (IG) of the Agra Range to conduct a detailed enquiry against the sub-inspector. A copy of the order has been sent to higher authorities to ensure strict action is taken and to prevent such blunders from recurring in the future.
“Such unwarranted acts are not only alarming but also embarrassing for the justice system. They should never be repeated,” the Court emphasized.
Public Outcry: What Does This Say About Our Police System?
This incident has sparked massive discussions on social media, legal circles, and public forums. People are questioning:
- Are police officers adequately trained in criminal procedure?
- How can someone mistake a judge issuing a legal order for an accused person?
- What checks and balances exist to prevent such blunders?
Legal experts have also pointed out that this is not an isolated incident. Cases of police misreading warrants, confusing identities, or filing incorrect reports are not unheard of. However, when it escalates to accusing a judge, it demands systemic introspection and reform.
Need for Better Training and Accountability
The episode underlines a glaring gap in police training, literacy, and procedural awareness. Execution of court orders is a sensitive responsibility, and when handled carelessly, it can undermine the entire justice system.
This is a wake-up call for:
- Comprehensive training modules on criminal procedure and judicial orders.
- Mandatory refresher courses for serving police personnel.
- Stricter oversight mechanisms for execution of warrants, summons, and proclamations.
- Strong accountability frameworks to penalize gross negligence.
Conclusion: A Lesson for the System
The UP Police’s proclamation blunder is more than a funny news headline—it’s a symptom of deeper structural issues. When those tasked with enforcing the law misapply it so drastically, it endangers the credibility of both law enforcement and the judicial system.
This case serves as a potent reminder that ignorance of the law is not just a citizen’s burden—it is catastrophic when it comes from those sworn to uphold it.
