The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a former Station House Officer (SHO) over the alleged failure to produce a police case diary before a trial court. Holding that there was no material to show that the omission was deliberate, the Court ruled that prosecution under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) requires proof of intentional disobedience and cannot rest on a bona fide lapse alone.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered the judgment on July 21, 2026, while allowing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Surendra Singh Bhati.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a criminal investigation in 2003 in which two accused persons were arrested and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Kota. The trial court repeatedly directed that the investigation case diary be produced during the hearing of the accused persons' bail applications. However, the diary was not placed before the court on two consecutive dates.
The ACJM then issued a notice to the SHO under Section 175 IPC, which deals with the intentional omission to produce a document before a public servant or court when legally required. The SHO responded that he had never received any communication from the Public Prosecutor asking him to produce the case diary and that the lapse was unintentional. Despite this explanation, cognizance was taken against him, and later attempts to have the proceedings dropped were rejected by both the Magistrate and the Revisional Court.
Court's Observations
Examining the record, the High Court found no prima facie evidence showing that the SHO had intentionally ignored the court's directions. The Court noted that no material was produced to establish that any letter or wireless message directing production of the case diary had actually reached the officer.
Justice Dhand observed,
“No prima facie evidence has been produced on the record to show that the aforesaid act of the petitioner... was intentional.”
The Court further held that in the absence of proof that the SHO knew about the court's order, it could not be presumed that he deliberately failed to comply.
The Court also explained that Section 175 IPC applies only when there is an intentional omission. It emphasized that before initiating such proceedings, the concerned person must be given a reasonable opportunity to produce the document and explain the delay.
Court on the Role of SHOs
While granting relief to the petitioner, the High Court also underlined the responsibilities of Station House Officers. It observed that an SHO heads the police station, supervises investigations, ensures that investigations are conducted lawfully and fairly, and is responsible for maintaining public order.
The bench remarked,
“The SHO is not just an administrator, he is the captain of the police station.” At the same time, it noted that every investigation must be conducted with due care and proper application of mind.
Decision
The High Court concluded that if the failure to produce the case diary resulted from the non-receipt of communication while the officer was discharging his official duties in a bona fide manner, prosecution under Section 175 IPC could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Court. It also quashed the original order taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 175 IPC.
Before closing the matter, the Court clarified that SHOs and Investigating Officers are expected to comply with court directions immediately upon receiving them, and any proven lapse may invite action in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Surendra Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 961/2018
Judge: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Decision Date: 21 July 2026
