Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a Station House Officer (SHO) cannot be prosecuted simply because a case diary was not produced before a court.
The Court held that action under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code can be taken only if there is evidence that the SHO deliberately and intentionally failed to comply with the court’s order.
In a reportable judgment, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quashed criminal proceedings against an SHO after finding that there was nothing on record to show that he had received the court’s direction to produce the case diary or had intentionally ignored it.
The case arose from a criminal matter pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Kota, in 2003. During the hearing of a bail application, the court directed the police to produce the case diary.
However, the case diary was not produced on the next two hearing dates. As a result, the Magistrate initiated proceedings against the then SHO under Section 175 IPC.
The SHO told the court that he had never received any letter, message or communication informing him that the case diary had been called by the court. Despite this, the Magistrate took cognizance against him, and the Revisional Court also upheld the order.
The SHO then challenged both orders before the High Court.
The High Court found that there was no evidence to show that the SHO had been informed about the court’s direction. No letter, wireless message or other record was produced to prove that the order had been communicated to him.
Therefore, the Court held that it could not be assumed that the SHO had intentionally disobeyed the court.
The Court observed that Section 175 IPC applies only when a person intentionally fails to produce a document before a court. If the document could not be produced because the officer was unaware of the court’s direction or for any other genuine reason, criminal action cannot be taken.
The Court also said that treating every such lapse as a criminal offence would lead to unnecessary prosecution of police officers.
While granting relief, the High Court also highlighted the important role of SHOs. It said that an SHO is the head of the police station and is responsible for maintaining law and order, supervising investigations and ensuring that investigations are carried out fairly and according to law.
The Court described the SHO as the “captain of the police station” and emphasised that filing a charge sheet is not a mere formality and cannot be conducted in a callous and casual manner, but requires proper application of mind.
At the same time, the Court clarified that SHOs and Investigating Officers must obey court orders as soon as they receive them. If an officer receives a court’s direction and still fails to comply without justification, appropriate legal action can be taken.
Accordingly, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the criminal case against the SHO, holding that in the absence of proof of intentional disobedience, prosecution under Section 175 IPC could not be sustained.