Police Official's Bonafide Failure To Produce Case Diary Not Offence, Else There Will Be 'Flood' Of Complaints: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a Station House Officer (SHO) under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that a bona fide failure to produce a case diary due to non-receipt of communication from the Public Prosecutor cannot attract criminal liability. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300]

Section 175 IPC penalises the intentional omission to produce or deliver a document or electronic record to a public servant by a person who is legally bound to do so.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 175 IPC and cautioned that treating every bona fide lapse by police officers as an intentional omission would result in "a flood of such kind of complaints" against them.

At the same time, the Court also highlighted the significance of finding a solution to the issue of police officials not obeying court directions.

“…it is imperative for the Court to provide a solution to the nagging issue of Police officials not obeying Court directions by not serving summons, executing warrants, producing documents etc. that plague the judicial system throughout the country and consequently, resulting in a huge number of cases remaining static without any progress.”

For context, the Court was hearing a challenge against the trial court order that took cognizance against the petitioner, and the revisional court order that upheld the cognizance.

The petitioner was posted as SHO at the relevant time, when in relation to a matter concerning two accused persons, the trial court had sought production of case dairy on various occasions. When the case diary did not reach the trial court despite many opportunities, it issued notice to the petitioner under Section 175, seeking explanation for such non-production.

The petitioner filed a reply saying he received no communication from the public prosecutor regarding any such requirement. However, irrespective of this explanation, cognizance was taken against him and this order was upheld by the revisional court too. This was challenged before the Court.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Section 175, IPC, and observed, that no prima facie evidence existed to show that the non-production of the case diary was intentional on part of the petitioner.

“Before proceeding under Section 175 IPC, it is imperative for the Court to give a reasonable opportunity to the person to produce the document. Despite such opportunity, if the person does not offer any reasonable excuse for such refusal, the Court can proceed against him…If on account of any other reason than non communication of the order of summoning of the case dairy, the same was not produced for two days, such an act of the SHO should be treated as intentional act. 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.”

In this background, it was concluded that since the petitioner failed to receive any communication for producing the case diary before the Court, he could not be held liable under Section 175, IPC.

The Court also opined that it was important to provide a solution to the nagging issue of police officials not obeying court directions, by not serving summons, executing warrants, producing documents, etc, which block the judicial system, resulting in status quo of many cases.

It was held that SHOs and IOs were expected to obey the orders passed by the Court immediately after receipt of the same. If any lapse was found, they shall be proceeded against as per law.

Title: Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300

Click Here To Read/Download Order