“Dereliction of Duty and Lack of Sensitivity”: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charges Against SHO in Hathras Case, Cites Breach of Victim’s Dignity and Violation of Legal Mandates
Sanchayita lahkar
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC, holding that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant under Sections 166A(b)(c) and 167 IPC. The Court directed that the trial proceedings would continue against the applicant, noting that sufficient material existed on record to warrant a full trial. The application challenging the summoning order, the charge sheet, and the trial court’s rejection of discharge was dismissed. The Court recorded that questions of fact raised by the applicant could only be appropriately adjudicated during the trial proceedings.
The case arose from an incident on 14.09.2020, when the informant lodged a complaint alleging that one Sandeep attempted to kill his sister while she was collecting fodder. The first information report (FIR) was registered under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act at Chandpa Police Station. In his statement under Section 161 CrPC, the informant alleged that police officials refused to provide a vehicle to transport the victim to the hospital and that she was taken in a shared auto.
The investigation was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which filed a supplementary charge sheet against Dinesh Kumar Verma, then Station House Officer (SHO) at Chandpa, alleging dereliction of duty. The CBI charge sheet stated that Verma failed to maintain the confidentiality of the victim, did not properly register the FIR based on the victim’s statement, failed to record her statement despite video evidence indicating molestation, and allowed media access to the victim.
The CBI further alleged that Verma recorded a video of the victim, where she stated, “jabardasti nahi karne diya tasu,” but failed to act appropriately on this information. It was found that the medical referral letter (‘chitthi majroobi’) was prepared routinely without indicating sexual assault. False entries were allegedly made in the General Diary, including that a lady constable examined the victim, although she had not.
The applicant, through counsel, contended that he had acted in good faith, prioritizing the victim’s urgent need for medical care. It was argued that the media presence at the police station was not orchestrated by the applicant and that due to political and media pressure, the case narrative was distorted. It was further contended that there was no evidence of mala fide intention, and errors, if any, were procedural irregularities not warranting criminal prosecution.
The applicant relied on various judgments to argue that Section 482 CrPC can be invoked where the allegations do not disclose a prima facie case and that procedural lapses alone do not constitute criminal offences under Sections 166A and 167 IPC. He submitted that the General Diary entries, even if incorrect, were inconsequential and did not cause any harm.
On behalf of the CBI, it was submitted that the investigation revealed significant breaches of statutory duties by the applicant, including failure to register offences relating to sexual assault, failure to protect the victim’s dignity, and permitting unauthorized access to her, all in violation of established guidelines.
The CBI submitted that sanction for prosecution had been obtained under Section 197 CrPC and that the Trial Court, after considering the material, had rightly framed charges against the applicant. The CBI submitted that it was not the High Court’s role at this stage to conduct a detailed examination of evidence or determine innocence.
Justice Raj Beer Singh recorded that "the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC at the stage of framing of charges." The Court observed that "prima facie material on record suggests that the applicant, being a public servant, knowingly disobeyed directions of law in the conduct of investigation and prepared false entries likely to cause injury."
It was stated that "from the video recording made by the applicant himself, it is apparent that the victim used the word ‘jabardasti,’ suggesting molestation, yet no corresponding action was taken to register appropriate sections of IPC."
The Court noted that "the ‘chitthi majroobi’ was prepared in a routine manner without any specific reference to the possibility of sexual assault despite clear indicators."
Justice Singh recorded that "allowing media access to the victim inside police station premises amounts to a violation of statutory guidelines and infringes upon the confidentiality and dignity of the victim."
Referring to General Diary entries, the Court observed that "false entries were made, claiming examination by a lady constable who had not met the victim, thereby attracting Section 167 IPC."
The Court further observed that "the allegations, as accepted on their face value, disclose the commission of offences under Sections 166A(b)(c) and 167 IPC."
The Court also recorded that "the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant regarding inadvertent mistakes or procedural irregularities cannot be adjudicated at this stage and must be left to be determined during trial based on evidence."
Finally, Justice Singh stated that "considering the material collected during investigation, the charge framing was appropriate and does not suffer from any illegality requiring interference under Section 482 CrPC."
The High Court, after examining the material placed on record, directed that considering the entire facts and the position of law, no case was made out for quashing the impugned proceedings. It recorded that the application under Section 482 CrPC lacked merit and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. In the concluding part of the judgment, Justice Raj Beer Singh observed that questions of fact and evidence raised in the matter could be adequately adjudicated only during the course of trial proceedings and not at the stage of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The Court further stated that the adjudication of questions of fact, appreciation of evidence, or examination of the reliability and credibility of the prosecution version does not fall within the limited jurisdiction available under Section 482 CrPC. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the court recorded that the charges already framed against the applicant would proceed in accordance with law.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ajit Kumar, Rajneesh Pratap Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Gyan Prakash Singh, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:63369
Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 20057 of 2023
Bench: Justice Raj Beer Singh
[Read/Download order]
