The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition filed by suspended Station House Officer (SHO) Dinesh Kumar Verma, who sought to quash the criminal proceedings and summoning order issued against him in the 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder case.
A single-judge bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh strongly criticized the SHO's conduct, noting serious procedural lapses and a lack of sensitivity in handling the case of a 19-year-old Dalit woman, who later died due to the injuries she suffered during the brutal assault.
Verma faces charges under Sections 166A(b)(c) and 167 of the IPC. According to the CBI's chargesheet, Verma failed to safeguard the dignity of the victim by allowing media persons to approach and photograph her inside the police station. It was also alleged that he recorded a video of the victim on his mobile phone but did not refer her for a sexual assault medical examination despite her mentioning "jabardasti" (forcible assault).
Shockingly, instead of arranging for a police vehicle or ambulance, Verma compelled the victim's family to transport her to the hospital in a shared auto-rickshaw. The chargesheet also revealed that false entries were made in the General Diary, suggesting that a lady constable had examined the victim, which was later found untrue.
The Court observed:
"…being Station House Officer of the police station, the applicant was custodian of the General Diary and therefore a false entries can not be made without direction or consent of the applicant."
Verma’s counsel argued there was no unlawful conduct and that the applicant managed the situation amid a crowd and media without causing panic. He further claimed that any discrepancies in the General Diary were mere irregularities, not illegalities.
However, the Deputy Solicitor General, representing the CBI, opposed the plea, asserting that charges had already been framed, and the correct remedy was to seek revision, not a plea under Section 482 CrPC. The Court clarified that the existence of an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar a Section 482 petition but emphasized its limited scope at the stage of charge/discharge.
Reviewing the chargesheet, witness statements, General Diary entries, and CCTV footage, the Court found two serious lapses:
"While the video of the victim which was prepared by the applicant in his mobile phone, it was clear that it was a case of molestation, he failed to protect the identity of the victim and did not stop any media person from contacting the victim."
"False entries were made in the General Diary by stating that a lady constable was sent for the victim's medical examination, which was not the case."
The Court specifically referred to Section 44 of the Police Act (as applicable in Uttar Pradesh), emphasizing that the SHO is responsible for maintaining accurate entries in the General Diary.
Noting the facts that emerged during the investigation, the Court said:
“All the above referred facts emerged in investigation not only indicate lack of sensitiveness but dereliction of duty on part of applicant and act and omissions of applicant violate the provisions of law and rules.”
Thus, finding sufficient material to proceed with the trial, the Court dismissed Verma’s plea. The bench emphasized that it was not conducting a mini-trial but merely assessing if there was prima facie material to continue prosecution.
It is important to note that the Hathras incident had led to widespread outrage. The High Court had earlier taken suo moto cognizance of the matter, particularly the midnight cremation of the victim against her family’s wishes, raising serious concerns about the violation of fundamental rights.
Case title - Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025
