![\"Court](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-47529300,imgsize-110164,width-400,height-225,resizemode-75\/47529300.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nRajkot:<\/span> A family court in Keshod ordered criminal proceedings against police officials in Porbandar district, finding prima facie evidence that they failed to execute court-issued jail warrants against a maintenance defaulter and allegedly created false records to shield him.A family court ordered that a criminal complaint be lodged against a deputy superintendent of police, a police inspector and an assistant head constable after finding prima facie that they failed to execute sentence warrants against a man who defaulted on maintenance payments and allegedly misled the court.In a 24-page order dated July 15, principal judge P H Singh of the family court in Junagadh, rejected the explanation submitted by the Porbandar superintendent of police and directed the court\u2019s senior clerk to file a complaint at Keshod police station within five days.The complaint is to be lodged against Kutiyana police inspector M D Vala, assistant head constable D H Jadeja and the DySP (Headquarters), Porbandar.The court directed registration of offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 198, 199, 201, 208, 210, 211, 212, 217, 223, 227, 228, 229, 233, 238, 240, 249, 255, 256, 259, 260, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 and 54; and Section 145(3) of the Gujarat Police Act. Copies of the order are to be sent to the Gujarat DGP, the Junagadh Range DIG and the Porbandar SP.The case originated from a maintenance application filed by Maya Makwana against her husband, Ranchhod Viramgama, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.In Dec 2022, a magistrate\u2019s court at Maliya Hatina directed Viramgama to pay Rs 2,000 per month as maintenance with effect from December 18, 2021, along with litigation costs.When he allegedly failed to clear the dues, recovery proceedings were initiated and the matter was later transferred to the Keshod family court.According to the order, the court issued sentence warrants in 2024 after the husband defaulted on payment. One warrant related to arrears of Rs 21,000 and costs of Rs 1,000, while another pertained to subsequent unpaid maintenance amounts.The warrants were forwarded to Porbandar police for execution because Viramgama was shown as a resident of Khunpur village in Kutiyana taluka.The court observed that despite two years passing, the warrants were not executed and no satisfactory explanation was provided.When show-cause notices were issued this year, the court found contradictions in reports submitted by police officials.According to the order, assistant head constable Jadeja reported that the warrants had been received by Kutiyana police station on Aug 5, 2024, searches were conducted until Dec 31, 2024, and the warrants were subsequently returned to the court by post.However, PI Vala later informed the court that the original warrants had been misplaced or lost and requested fresh warrants.The court described the two versions as contradictory and said they raised serious doubts about police conduct. It further noted that entries in the warrant register suggested the warrants had been returned, even though the court had not received them.The order also refers to proceedings on July 1, when Viramgama appeared before the court in a separate maintenance recovery matter.Police officials stated they had neither arrested him nor produced him before the court. However, Viramgama and his brother stated on oath that two policemen had taken him to Kutiyana police station on June 30 and instructed him to appear in court the next morning.According to the order, CCTV footage submitted to the court showed Viramgama arriving at the police station at about 8.47pm on June 30 and leaving around 8.54am the following day.The court observed that he appeared to have spent nearly 12 hours at the police station despite pending sentence warrants, yet no arrest was made and no proper police records were produced.Rejecting the explanation that he had stayed there voluntarily due to financial difficulties, the court concluded that the officials had prima facie failed to obey lawful orders, misled the court, tampered with records and helped the maintenance defaulter avoid imprisonment.The judge further observed that the alleged conduct adversely affected the legal rights of the wife, who had been seeking recovery of court-ordered maintenance for several years.<\/div>\n