SHOs Not Mere Post-Offices, Must Apply Independent Mind Before Filing Charge Sheets: Rajasthan High Court
SHO is duty bound to supervise and check investigation is conducted properly, Court said.
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that Station House Officers (SHOs) cannot not act as a mere "post office" by forwarding the documents and charge sheet to the Court, prepared based on the probe conducted by the Investigating Officer.It said that they are duty bound to supervise, check and ensure that the investigation was conducted in an impartial, fair and expeditious manner,...
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that Station House Officers (SHOs) cannot not act as a mere "post office" by forwarding the documents and charge sheet to the Court, prepared based on the probe conducted by the Investigating Officer.
It said that they are duty bound to supervise, check and ensure that the investigation was conducted in an impartial, fair and expeditious manner, in accordance with law.
“A fair and impartial investigation is the bedrock of justice…Therefore every Station House Officer (for short “SHO”) and Investigation Officer has a constitutional and legal duty to ensure the investigation to be fair, transparent and based only on evidence. Hence, it is their statutory duty to conduct the investigation without bias, fear or favour and in accordance with law...
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..." the court said.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand upheld the cognizance taken against the SHO by the trial court based on the allegations of filing of a charge sheet for a lesser offence than the one which was actually made out.
The Court observed that filing of a charge sheet was not a mere formality. Before submission of the charge sheet to the court, the SHO was required to vet and apply his mind to the evidence submitted before him. Failure in doing so made SHO liable.
For context, the petitioner met with an accident and filed an FIR against the driver of the vehicle. It was alleged that since he suffered a fractured leg, the offence of causing grievous hurt by rash or negligent driving was also made out. However, the charge sheet was filed only for the offences of rash and negligence driving, and causing hurt by rash or negligent act.
It was contended by the petitioner that the offence of grievous hurt was intentionally and deliberately not included in the charge sheet by the police that resulted in him being deprived of getting adequate amount of compensation. Hence, he filed case against the concerned SHO and the Head Constable (IO in the case) under Sections 166 and 167 IPC.
Cognizance was taken by the trial court against the SHO and the IO, against which a revision petition was filed. Based on the submission that the investigation was conducted by the IO, in which SHO had no role to play, the cognizance was quashed against the SHO. This order was challenged before the Court.
Section 167, IPC, provides the offence of intentionally creating or translating false documents, for causing harm to someone.
Section 166, IPC, penalises the public servants who knowingly disobeyed law to cause injury to any person.
After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that fair trial and investigation were rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21, and it was minimum requirement of the rule of law that the investigation was fair, transparent and judicious.
“Defective investigation tends to shake the faith reposed by the members of the society including the suspect/accused as well as the Victim. The most effected would be the suspect because all have to be presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and tainted investigation would curtail his freedoms i.e. life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21…Likewise, victims, as they have surrendered their rights in legitimate expectation of protection of their interests including safe environment. So, it necessitates striking a balance between the conflicting interests of the accused and the Victim, for which, evidently fair investigation is the solitary solution.”
In this light, while underscoring the significance and duties of an SHO, the Court held that they were duty bound to monitor and supervise the investigation carried out by the IO, and to ensure that the charge sheet was filed only after proper application of mind.
The Court rejected the argument of SHO not being involved in the investigation, and observed that SHO was not a mere post office to forward the charge sheet to the Court. S/he was duty bound to submit the charge sheet after application of mind.
“The Station House Officers are the unsung heroes of the police force with the critical responsibility of maintaining law and order in their jurisdictional areas. Their dedication, leadership and commitment to justice make them invaluable assets in the criminal justice system…He cannot permit the investigation to be conducted in a callous and casual manner.”
In this background, looking at the record of the case, the Court concluded that the SHO had failed miserably to discharge his public duty.
Accordingly, the order of the Revision Court was set aside, and cognizance taken against the SHO was upheld.
The Court also directed the copy of the order to be sent to Secretary, Department of Home, and General of Police, so that directions could be issued to all SHOs to not act like post office while submitting charge sheets.
Title: Rajendra Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 286