Mens rea essential u/s 175 IPC: Rajasthan High Court quashes cognizance against Kota SHO

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the cognizance taken against a Station House Officer under Section 175 IPC for non-production of a case diary before a Kota court on two consecutive dates, holding that mens rea is essential to the offence and that no prima facie evidence showed the omission was intentional.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that in the absence of any prima facie material on record, it could not be believed by any stretch of imagination that the officer had knowledge of the order summoning the case diary and that he deliberately and intentionally did not produce it before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kota.

“Section 175 IPC requires that a person shall have intentionally omitted to produce the documents. Therefore, mens rea is essential,” the Court held, adding, “If action is taken in such like manner against the Police officials, then there would be a flood of such kind of complaints against them.”

The petitioner, Surendra Singh Bhati, was posted as SHO of Police Station Dadabadi, District Kota at the relevant time. His petition challenged the order dated Jun 23, 2017 of the Judicial Magistrate, Kota (North) rejecting his application under Section 197 CrPC, as well as the order dated Jan 12, 2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Kota dismissing his revision against it.

In a criminal case bearing No. 173/2003, two accused, Sudhir Jain and Shailendra Gautam, were arrested and produced before the ACJM No.2, Kota on Apr 22, 2003 for orders on their police custody remand. The prayer for PC remand was rejected and the accused were sent to judicial custody. When they moved bail applications, the court called for the case diary on Apr 23, 2003, but it was not produced either on that date or the next.

Taking serious note of the non-production of the case diary on two consecutive occasions, the ACJM No.2, Kota issued a notice to the SHO under Section 175 IPC. In his reply, the petitioner stated that he had never received any letter or communication from the Public Prosecutor for production of the case diary. Without considering this explanation, cognizance was taken against him for the offence under Section 175 IPC on Apr 26, 2003.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of non-communication of the order summoning the case diary, no offence under Section 175 IPC was made out, and that in any event the petitioner, being a public servant, could not be prosecuted without sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

Examining Section 175 IPC (omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it), the Court noted that before proceeding under the provision, it is imperative to give the person a reasonable opportunity to produce the document, and action can follow only where no reasonable excuse is offered for the refusal. On facts, no correspondence — a letter or wireless message from the office of the Public Prosecutor directing the SHO to produce the diary — was placed on record to show the omission was intentional.

The Court further noted that the offence under Section 175 IPC is bailable and non-cognizable, and that cognizance was straightaway taken against the petitioner without any complaint being filed against him.

Dwelling on the office of the SHO, Justice Dhand described Station House Officers as “the unsung heroes of the police force” with the critical responsibility of maintaining law and order in their jurisdictional areas, while flagging the “nagging issue” of police officials not obeying court directions by not serving summons, executing warrants or producing documents, which plagues the judicial system and leaves a huge number of cases static. The Court observed: “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.”

Holding that if the petitioner failed to receive any communication for producing the case diary while discharging his duties in a bona fide way, he cannot be held responsible under Section 175 IPC, the Court, by its order dated Jul 21, 2026, set aside both impugned orders and quashed the cognizance order dated Apr 26, 2003 passed by the ACJM No.2, Kota. It, however, cautioned that SHOs and IOs are expected to obey court orders immediately upon receipt, failing which “they will be taken to task, as per law.”

Title: Surendra Singh Bhati v State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 961/2018

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:28101]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Jaswant Singh and Mr. Namo Narayan Meena for Mr. Harendra Singh

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP