Allahabad High Court Dismisses SHO’s Plea For Quashing Criminal Proceedings For Not Registering Appropriate FIR In The 2020 Hathras Gang Rape & Murder Case

The Court dismissed the Application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by the Applicant for quashing of the proceedings, including the summoning order issued by the Trial Court in respect of chargesheet filed by the CBI. The complaint highlighted the Applicant’s failure to arrange transport for the victim, who was sent to the hospital in a private shared auto. Adding to this, it was also alleged that the General Diary contained false entries stating that a lady constable examined the victim's injuries when, allegedly, she was never examined.

A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh held, “An objection was raised on behalf of CBI that charges have already been framed by the trial court and the appropriate remedy against the order of charge is to file a revision and thus, this application under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable.”

Advocate Ajit Kumar appeared for the Applicant, while Deputy Solicitor General Gyan Prakash Singh represented the Opposite Party.

Brief Facts

The Prosecution alleged that when the victim was brought to the police station, a number of media persons/local reporters had gathered there and were allowed to approach the victim and capture her photographs and make video inside the police station.

From the video of the victim made by the Applicant on his mobile phone, it was alleged that it was a case of molestation and as being SHO, it was his duty not to let the identity of the victim get disclosed, but he failed to do so.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted, “Section 167 IPC deals with particular instance of a public servant assigned the duty of preparation of a document, incorrectly prepares, frames, translates such document. To constitute a charge under section 167 IPC, it must be shown that such public servant knew or believed that he was incorrectly framing or translating the document, and that he did the same with the intent or with the knowledge that it was likely that he would thereby cause injury. The intention to cause injury to any person by perversion of official duty is a requirement under the Section, however, where the act is in itself unlawful, the proof of justification or excuse lies with the accused public servant; and in failure thereof, the law implies criminal intent.”

“Further, when victim was brought at the police station, she was stated to be in conscious condition but her statement was not recorded. In view of these facts, first information report must have been recorded on the basis of her statement but it was not done,” the Bench further noted.

The Court remarked, “In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has inter-alia made allegations that when the victim was brought to the police station, despite his request the police did not take the victim to the hospital. The applicant was posted as Station House Officer of the police station. The informant has alleged that he has requested the police to send the victim to the hospital by a police vehicle but the police told that the way she (victim) has been brought to the police station the same way she has to be taken to the hospital by the informant and ultimately the victim was taken to the hospital by the informant in a shared auto.”

“The contention of learned counsel for applicant that applicant could not mark the term ‘jabardasti’, in video of victim and it was a bonafide mistake, can not be accepted. It may be stated that as per SOP, available on website of Ministry of Home Affairs (Annexure no.30) regarding investigation and prosecution of rape cases, victim should be sent for medical examination by the Investigating Officer under properly filled in medical examination sheet. In the instant matter that guideline has not been followed by the applicant,” the Bench stated.

The Court also pointed out, “Further, in the video of victim prepared by the applicant, she has stated words “jabardasti nahi karne diya tasu”, which implies attempt of molestation and thus first information must be registered under appropriate sections of IPC relating to molestation but it was not done. Thus, the act / omission of applicant makes out a case under Section 166(C) IPC. From the video of the victim, the applicant can be attributed to the knowledge that he was aware that it was a case of sexual molestation but despite that no statement of victim was recorded and first information report was registered on the basis of tehreer submitted by her brother.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.

Cause Title: Dinesh Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:63369)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Ajit Kumar and Rajneesh Pratap Singh

Opposite Party: Deputy Solicitor General Gyan Prakash Singh; Advocate Sanjay Kumar Yadav

Click here to read/download the Order