Police must verify criminal-case status and issue character certificates when no case remains pending.

The petitioner stated that he had been tried in Criminal Case No. 3343/2012, arising from Crime No. 81/2012 registered at Police Station Tukoganj for offences under Sections 294, 327, 506 and 34 of the IPC, and acquitted by judgment dated 27 July 2013.

When he later sought a character verification certificate, the police required proof of the acquittal.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) declined to provide the judgment, stating that the record had been destroyed in an incident on 8 April 2021; the petitioner’s application was also refused because the CJM could not direct the police to issue the certificate.

The petitioner sought, among other reliefs, reconstruction of the trial record or confirmation of acquittal, and directions for the police to update their records and issue a character verification report.

1. Whether the petitioner could be required to produce the acquittal judgment when the court record had been destroyed and the judgment was unavailable.

2. Whether the police were required to verify the status of the criminal case and issue a character verification certificate if no case remained pending.

The petition was considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court relied on the established mechanism for communicating acquittals from the court to the concerned police station and held that the court and police share responsibility for ensuring the smooth exchange of case-status information. Where the record is unavailable, the petitioner should not be left without a remedy; the police must verify whether the case remains pending and issue a character verification certificate if it does not. No specific statutory provision beyond Article 226 or judicial precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the petitioner could not produce the acquittal judgment because the trial record had been destroyed, and the CJM had confirmed that a copy was unavailable.

It considered that the established communication process should have informed the police of the acquittal and that the petitioner could not be made to bear the consequences of a failure in court–police coordination and record preservation.

Accordingly, rather than direct reconstruction of the record or issue a certificate of acquittal, the Court required the police to check for the court’s communication and independently verify whether the case remained pending.

If the case was not pending before any court, the police were required to issue the petitioner a character verification certificate. The exercise was to be completed within three months of communication of the order.