Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a police officer for failing to return court notices on time, holding that an inadvertent lapse during official duty cannot by itself be treated as a criminal offence.
Justice Farjand Ali passed the order on a petition filed by Manoj Machara, then SHO of Kotgate Police Station, Bikaner. The Court set aside the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance against him under Section 173 IPC and terminated the proceedings.
The case arose during the pendency of another criminal matter before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner. Certain notices were sent to Machara for service on the concerned persons. Although the notices were received and steps were taken for their service, they were not returned to the court within the prescribed time.
Machara explained that he was engaged in the Police Constable Recruitment Examination, 2021, from May 13 to 16, 2022, due to which the notices could not be sent back on time. He admitted the lapse, expressed regret and assured the court that it would not happen again.
The Sessions Court did not accept his explanation and lodged a complaint alleging intentional non-compliance with its directions. The Magistrate subsequently took cognizance against Machara under Section 173 IPC.
The High Court, however, found no material to show that Machara had deliberately disobeyed the court or intended to obstruct the judicial process.
Justice Ali observed that criminal law is meant to address “deliberate and culpable misconduct” and not every “human error” committed while performing official duties. The Court further said that “occasional procedural lapses attributable to administrative exigencies cannot, by themselves, be elevated to the status of criminal culpability.”
The Court said a public servant cannot face criminal prosecution for a simple official mistake unless there is evidence of “deliberate defiance or conscious disobedience.” Here, the Magistrate’s order did not show any such intention and was based only on the delay. The High Court called it a “mechanical exercise of jurisdiction.”
As there was no deliberate or mala fide conduct, the Court held that continuing the case would be an “abuse of the process of the Court.”
The High Court accordingly quashed the Magistrate’s order and terminated all proceedings against SHO.