The Allahabad High Court cautioned police against mechanically registering FIRs in non-cognizable cases and mandated accountability. It directed action against informants for false complaints, warning that failure to proceed may invite legal consequences and departmental action against erring officers.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has issued a warning to police officers against the automatic registration of FIRs in non-cognizable cases.
The Court directed that whenever an investigation concludes that allegations are false, the police must take action against the informant for providing misleading information; failure to do so could result in legal and departmental repercussions for the officers involved.
This directive came from a bench led by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, who quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a woman in a matrimonial dispute. The Court found that both the police and the magistrate had violated required procedural safeguards, leading to an abuse of the criminal process and infringing on the accused’s “right to personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The informant was employed as a Research Professor at Hanyang University, Seoul, in 2020. During this period, his wife (the present applicant) was allegedly involved in a live-in relationship with Afzan Khan, a resident associated with Chongju University, Korea. Upon discovering this relationship, the informant lodged a complaint with the Korean police and confronted his wife. Subsequently, the parties obtained a divorce, and their marital relationship stood dissolved in accordance with Sharia law.
It is further alleged that, in order to safeguard the future and academic prospects of his elder child, the informant resigned from his employment and instituted guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act before the Family Court at Aligarh on 05.02.2021, which remain pending.
The FIR further states that the informant’s former wife and her alleged partner have been defaming him and his daughter on Facebook by using obscene, abusive, and derogatory language. It is also alleged that they issued threats warning the informant not to return to or reside in India, failing which he would be eliminated.
On these allegations, the informant lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 1004 of 2023 under Sections 504 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh, against the applicant–accused (wife).
After the FIR was registered, the police conducted an investigation and, on June 19, 2024, submitted a final report stating that no offense was established against the woman. The investigating officer found no evidence to support claims of criminal intimidation or insulting behavior.
Subsequently, the informant filed a protest petition with the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Aligarh. The magistrate accepted the protest, rejected the closure report, and, by an order dated October 23, 2024, took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoning the woman to face trial under Sections 504 and 507 IPC, treating it as a state case.
Challenging this order, the accused woman approached the High Court, arguing that both alleged offenses were non-cognizable and that the police lacked the authority to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC.
It was contended that, at most, a non-cognizable report (NCR) should have been registered, allowing investigation only after obtaining permission from a magistrate. The High Court accepted this argument, stating that Sections 504 and 507 IPC are non-cognizable, bailable offenses punishable by up to two years of imprisonment.
The Court emphasized that registering an FIR in such cases was legally inappropriate and constituted a misuse of police power from the face of the case.
Furthermore, the Court stated that when an investigation in a non-cognizable case leads to a police report, the law requires that such a report be treated as a complaint, with the investigating officer considered the complainant.
In these circumstances, cognizance should only be taken under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC as a complaint case, and not as a police case under Section 190(1)(b). Justice Giri made it clear that in instances where an FIR or NCR is found to be false, the investigating officer has a statutory obligation to file a complaint against the informant under Sections 177 and 182 IPC, which correspond to Sections 212 and 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, adhering to Section 195 CrPC and Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The Court warned that failure to initiate such action may result in criminal liability for police officers for disregarding legal directives, in addition to potential departmental consequences.
The Court reiterated the necessity for strict compliance with U.P. Police Regulations concerning the registration of FIRs and NCRs, highlighting that any deviation from these regulations directly impacts fundamental rights.
Regarding the magistrate’s role, the Court criticized the Chief Judicial Magistrate for misclassifying a non-cognizable offense as a state case, neglecting to consider the limitation, and summoning the accused without granting her the opportunity for a hearing as required under the BNSS.
As a result, the Court held that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process, quashing the cognizance and summoning order dated October 23, 2024, along with all associated criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Umme Farva vs. State of U.P. and Another
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
