The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a Station House Officer (SHO) cannot mechanically forward an investigation report without independently examining the evidence. Holding that supervisory responsibility is an essential part of an SHO's duties, the Court restored criminal proceedings against a police officer after finding that the Revisional Court had wrongly quashed the cognizance order against him.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a road accident in which petitioner Rajendra Prasad suffered multiple injuries, including a fracture in his left leg. An FIR was registered at Police Station Mundawar, Alwar, and after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet only for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner argued that the medical records and X-ray clearly showed a grievous injury, making Section 338 IPC applicable as well. He alleged that the investigating officials deliberately omitted the more serious charge, resulting in prejudice to his legal rights, including his claim for appropriate compensation.
A Magistrate had earlier taken cognizance against the SHO and the Investigating Officer under Sections 166 and 167 IPC, but the Revisional Court later quashed the proceedings against the SHO, observing that he had not personally conducted the investigation.
Court's Observations
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand disagreed with the Revisional Court's approach and emphasized that fair investigation is an integral part of the constitutional guarantee under Articles 20 and 21.
The Court observed that an SHO is not merely an administrative head but is responsible for supervising investigations carried out within the police station.
"The SHO is not just an administrator; he is the captain of the police station. The law requires him to steer the investigation so that it is lawful, timely and aimed at truth not just closure," the Court observed.
The Court further noted that filing a charge sheet is not a routine exercise. Before forwarding it to the court, an SHO must independently assess the investigation, verify the evidence collected, and ensure that the appropriate legal provisions have been invoked.
Referring to the facts of the case, the Court found that the injury records clearly disclosed a fracture, which amounted to a grievous injury. Despite this, the charge sheet omitted Section 338 IPC. According to the Court, even if the investigation had been conducted by the Head Constable, the SHO remained responsible for examining whether the final report correctly reflected the evidence.
"The SHO of any police station cannot act as a mere post office, simply forwarding documents to the concerned Court," the bench remarked.
Court's Decision
Allowing the criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court set aside the Revisional Court's order that had quashed the cognizance against SHO Dharm Singh Meena. It held that a prima facie case existed regarding his alleged failure to discharge his supervisory duties and restored the proceedings against him.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the legality of the Revisional Court's order and should not influence the merits of the pending proceedings.
In addition, the Court directed that copies of its judgment be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, and the Director General of Police, Rajasthan.
It instructed that SHOs across the State be directed to independently scrutinize investigation records, vet the evidence, apply their own mind, and only thereafter submit charge sheets or final reports before the competent courts.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 246/2024
Judge: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Decision Date: 10 July 2026
