Police hunts for judge instead of thief in bizarre mix-up | Agra News

AGRA: In a case straight out of a comedy of errors, a sub-inspector (SI) assigned to serve a court proclamation to the accused in a decades-old theft case in Firozabad, ended up pursuing the wrong person — his own judge. The confusion came to light on March 23, when the officer, instead of reporting on the whereabouts of the suspect, informed the court of chief judicial magistrate Nagma Khan that “accused Nagma Khan” could not be located at her residence.
The proclamation had been issued by Khan under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), summoning Rajkumar alias Pappu, accused in a 2001 case involving theft from a dwelling and wrongful restraint. SI Banwarilal, tasked with delivering the order, misread the document — or simply didn’t read it with care. He recorded the name of the magistrate instead of the accused and proceeded to search for her.
When the matter came up in court, Banwarilal appeared unfazed. He said that the accused — meaning the judge — was not at home and asked for further instructions to be issued against her. The court noted in its March 24 order that the officer had confused the proclamation with a non-bailable warrant and “quite blindly” inserted the judge’s name. “It appears he has not perused it properly,” the order read. “Such patent and grave error on his part reflects poorly on his working as a police officer as he knows nothing of the duties enjoined on him.”

The case itself had made its way through the courts at a steady if unhurried pace. Registered at Firozabad North Police Station in 2001, it was filed in court in 2012 and saw its first hearing in Sept 2013. In June 2024, the matter was transferred to the court of the additional civil judge (senior division) in Firozabad. When Rajkumar failed to appear, magistrate Khan issued a proclamation on March 23 — a legal process intended to compel appearance when an accused is believed to be absconding. Banwarilal, however, lost the plot somewhere between the paperwork and the fieldwork.
“Without giving an inch of attention to the process,” the judge noted, the officer “first carelessly mentions the proclamation as an NBW and then just wrote the name of the presiding officer (judge) quite blindly.” The court order was uploaded to the judicial website on Wednesday.
Calling the lapse a “flagrant dereliction of duty”, the court warned that such conduct, if left unchecked, would erode fundamental rights. “A police officer serving process is supposed to exercise highest level of care as these processes entail heavy consequences,” the order said. “If such negligent police officials are made free to serve processes in such a blind form, escaping consequences of their wrongs, they will run amok thus trampling upon the precious fundamental rights to liberty of anyone per their whims and fancies.”
The court directed senior police officials to investigate the officer’s conduct and ensure corrective action. Copies of the order were sent to the DGP, Firozabad DP, and Agra range inspector general.
Magistrate Khan, in her one-page observation, pointed to a deeper institutional concern: “It is quite bizarre that the serving officer of the concerned police station has little to no idea of what was sent by this court, who exactly sent it and against whom.” Speaking to TOI, Firozabad SSP confirmed the development. “Banwarilal has been transferred to police lines with immediate effect and departmental enquiry initiated,” the officer said.
Agra: In a case straight out of a comedy of errors, a sub-inspector (SI) assigned to serve a court proclamation to the accused in a decades-old theft case in Firozabad, ended up pursuing the wrong person — his own judge. The confusion came to light on March 23, when the officer, instead of reporting on the whereabouts of the suspect, informed the court of chief judicial magistrate Nagma Khan that “accused Nagma Khan” could not be located at her residence.
The proclamation had been issued by Khan under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), summoning Rajkumar alias Pappu, accused in a 2001 case involving theft from a dwelling and wrongful restraint. SI Banwarilal, tasked with delivering the order, misread the document — or simply didn’t read it with care. He recorded the name of the magistrate instead of the accused and proceeded to search for her.
When the matter came up in court, Banwarilal appeared unfazed. He said that the accused — meaning the judge — was not at home and asked for further instructions to be issued against her. The court noted in its March 24 order that the officer had confused the proclamation with a non-bailable warrant and “quite blindly” inserted the judge’s name. “It appears he has not perused it properly,” the order read. “Such patent and grave error on his part reflects poorly on his working as a police officer as he knows nothing of the duties enjoined on him.”
The case itself had made its way through the courts at a steady if unhurried pace. Registered at Firozabad North Police Station in 2001, it was filed in court in 2012 and saw its first hearing in Sept 2013. In June 2024, the matter was transferred to the court of the additional civil judge (senior division) in Firozabad. When Rajkumar failed to appear, magistrate Khan issued a proclamation on March 23 — a legal process intended to compel appearance when an accused is believed to be absconding. Banwarilal, however, lost the plot somewhere between the paperwork and the fieldwork.
“Without giving an inch of attention to the process,” the judge noted, the officer “first carelessly mentions the proclamation as an NBW and then just wrote the name of the presiding officer (judge) quite blindly.” The court order was uploaded to the judicial website on Wednesday.
Calling the lapse a “flagrant dereliction of duty”, the court warned that such conduct, if left unchecked, would erode fundamental rights. “A police officer serving process is supposed to exercise highest level of care as these processes entail heavy consequences,” the order said. “If such negligent police officials are made free to serve processes in such a blind form, escaping consequences of their wrongs, they will run amok thus trampling upon the precious fundamental rights to liberty of anyone per their whims and fancies.”
The court directed senior police officials to investigate the officer’s conduct and ensure corrective action. Copies of the order were sent to the DGP, Firozabad DP, and Agra range inspector general.
Magistrate Khan, in her one-page observation, pointed to a deeper institutional concern: “It is quite bizarre that the serving officer of the concerned police station has little to no idea of what was sent by this court, who exactly sent it and against whom.” Speaking to TOI, Firozabad SSP confirmed the development. “Banwarilal has been transferred to police lines with immediate effect and departmental enquiry initiated,” the officer said.