Accused Not Entitled to Access Police Case Diary During Investigation or Trial; Confidentiality of Criminal Investigations Must Be Preserved: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: State of Punjab and Another v. State Information Commission, Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 11 March 2026

Citation: CWP-8126-2016 & CWP-18515-2016

Bench: Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that an accused cannot seek access to police case diaries during investigation or trial by invoking the Right to Information Act. The Court ruled that Section 172(3) CrPC expressly bars accused persons from inspecting police case diaries, and the confidentiality of criminal investigations must be preserved to prevent prejudice to investigation and to protect the safety of informants and witnesses.

Summary: The case arose from two writ petitions filed by the State of Punjab challenging orders passed by the Punjab State Information Commission imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 on a senior police officer under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and awarding compensation of ₹20,000 to an RTI applicant.

The respondent, who was an accused in criminal proceedings, had filed multiple applications under the RTI Act seeking access to police records related to FIR No. 240 of 2004 and FIR No. 242 of 2005 registered at Police Station City Jagraon. The information sought included copies of the case diary (zimni), daily diary (roznamcha), and inspection of the complete police file relating to the criminal cases in which he was an accused.

The Public Information Officer declined to supply the requested documents by invoking the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act and the statutory prohibition contained in Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was pointed out that the trials in the concerned FIRs were still pending at the time the information was sought.

Aggrieved by the refusal, the respondent pursued statutory appeals before the appellate authority and subsequently before the State Information Commission. The Commission allowed the appeals and imposed penalties on the concerned officer for failure to supply the information.

Challenging these orders before the High Court, the State argued that police case diaries are expressly protected from disclosure under Section 172(3) CrPC and that allowing accused persons access to such material would compromise the confidentiality of criminal investigations.

The High Court examined the statutory scheme governing police case diaries. Section 172 CrPC requires investigating officers to maintain a diary recording the progress of investigation, including information received, places visited and circumstances discovered during investigation. However, Section 172(3) clearly prohibits accused persons or their agents from calling for or inspecting such diaries merely because they are referred to by the court.

The Court also analysed the interplay between the RTI Act and the CrPC. It held that Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that would impede investigation or prosecution, complements the restriction contained in Section 172(3) CrPC. These provisions together safeguard the confidentiality of investigative records.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mukand Lal v. Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 172(3) CrPC and recognised that unrestricted access to police diaries could jeopardize criminal investigations and compromise public interest.

Further reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Sidharth v. State of Bihar, where it was emphasised that the entire case diary should not be made available to the accused because it may contain confidential information whose disclosure could endanger witnesses or informants and prejudice the investigation.

The High Court observed that confidentiality of investigation records serves an important public interest. Police case diaries may contain sensitive details regarding informants, investigative strategies, and internal observations of officers. Disclosure of such material could deter individuals from cooperating with law enforcement and undermine the integrity of criminal investigations.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the Public Information Officer had correctly refused disclosure of the case diary and police file when the trial was still pending. Therefore, the orders of the Information Commission imposing penalty and awarding compensation were legally unsustainable.

Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the orders of the Punjab State Information Commission imposing penalty and compensation. The Court held that refusal to disclose the police case diary during the pendency of criminal proceedings was legally justified and consistent with Section 172(3) CrPC and the exemptions under the RTI Act.