Not conducting investigation personally no defence for SHO under Sections 166, 167 IPC: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Station House Officer cannot escape liability under Sections 166 and 167 IPC merely because he did not personally conduct the investigation, ruling that an SHO’s supervisory duty to vet a chargesheet before filing survives even where the actual probe was carried out by a subordinate officer.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order of the Revisional Court that had quashed cognizance against a Station House Officer on the technical ground that the investigation was conducted by a Head Constable and not by him personally, holding that an SHO who signs off on a chargesheet without vetting the underlying material has not discharged his statutory duty.

Describing the SHO’s role, 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.”

The petitioner, Rajendra Prasad, met with a road accident on Nov 3, 2013 caused by the driver of a car, in which he sustained a fracture on his left leg. FIR No. 425/2013 was registered at Police Station Mundawar, Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Though the injury report and the X-ray on record showed a grievous injury, the chargesheet was filed against the driver only under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, without including Section 338 IPC.

The petitioner contended that this omission was deliberate and deprived him of adequate compensation for his injuries, and that the conduct of the then SHO, Dharm Singh Meena, and the Head Constable who investigated the case, Rajendra Prasad, amounted to an offence under Sections 166 and 167 IPC. Cognizance was taken against both officers on Apr 5, 2019. On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mundawar, Alwar quashed the cognizance order qua the SHO by its order dated Nov 8, 2023, on the ground that the investigation had been carried out by the Head Constable and not by him.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the SHO, being in charge of the police station, was duty bound to examine whether the investigation conducted by the Head Constable was proper before submitting the chargesheet, and that his failure to do so made him equally liable with the Head Constable for the offences under Sections 166 and 167 IPC. It was submitted that the Revisional Court had overlooked this aspect while quashing the cognizance order against him.

The Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the SHO opposed the petition, submitting that since the investigation was carried out by the Head Constable and the SHO had merely forwarded the chargesheet prepared by him, there was no mens rea or ill motive attributable to the SHO, and that the Revisional Court had rightly quashed the cognizance order against him.

The Court held that fair investigation is part of the constitutional guarantee under Articles 20 and 21, and that the minimum requirement of the rule of law is that investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious. Referring to Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441, the Court observed that a tainted investigation curtails the life and liberty of a suspect who is presumed innocent till proven guilty, while a victim is equally entitled to a fair probe.

Undertaking a discussion of the SHO’s role, the Court noted that an SHO is the head of the police station, responsible for its proper functioning and for ensuring that investigation is conducted lawfully, and cannot permit an investigation to be carried out in a “callous and casual manner.” It observed:

“However, this fact cannot lose sight that the SHO of any Police Station cannot act as a mere post office, simply forwarding documents to the concerned Court. The SHO is duty bound to supervise and check whether the investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer in a proper manner or not.”

Applying this to the facts, the Court found that the injury report and the X-ray report on record clearly showed that the petitioner had sustained a fracture, making out an offence under Section 338 IPC, yet the SHO submitted the chargesheet without including this offence. It held that the SHO had “miserably failed to discharge his supervisory duty to vet the investigation report” prepared by the Head Constable, and that a prima facie case under Sections 166 and 167 IPC was made out against him as well.

Holding that the Revisional Court’s order qua the SHO was not sustainable in law, the Court quashed and set aside that portion of the order and allowed the criminal misc. petition, along with all pending applications. It clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the petition and directed the Revisional Court to decide the matter concerning the SHO afresh on the basis of the evidence on record, uninfluenced by any observation made in the order.

The Court further directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, and the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to issue directions to SHOs of all police stations in the state not to act as a “post office” while forwarding investigation results to courts, and to vet the evidence and form an independent opinion before submitting the chargesheet or final report under Section 173 CrPC.

Title: Rajendra Prasad v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 246/2024

Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:26052

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Babu Lal Sharma

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta (PP), Mr. Abhishek Parashar, Mr. Dhanna Ram