New Delhi: Dismissing a plea by Noida-based company owner Arpit Gupta to quash what he claimed to be a “retaliatory” FIR of sexual assault by a former female employee, the Allahabad High Court has held that a rape survivor’s failure to produce relevant WhatsApp chats, call recordings or social media evidence cannot become a reason for the police to refuse registering her complaint.
Strongly pulling up the Uttar Pradesh Police, the court has directed the state’s Director General of Police (DGP) to conduct a formal inquiry and issue show-cause notices to senior officers, including the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, for failing to register the victim’s complaint.
The case arises from a petition filed by Arpit Gupta, owner of Noida-based Parit Associates (OPC) Private Limited, seeking to quash a crime registered at Wave City Police Station in Ghaziabad. The complainant, hired as an administrative employee in October 2025, alleged that Gupta routinely abused his authority, called her to his cabin, offered promotions for sexual favours, and molested her under threats of violence.
The prosecutrix further alleged that the Gupta had purchased a plot at Bhangel, and would to ask her to visit the plot alone so that she could inspect it and see how many flats could be constructed there. She said that she refused to visit the place alone.
The alleged systemic abuse culminated in March 2026 inside Gupta’s cabin, where he allegedly committed acts of digital penetration—meaning the non-consensual insertion of a finger, thumb, toe or object into a person’s private body parts. The court order noted that the complainant alleged that “he put his hand inside her top and pressed her breast”.
She further alleged that, despite her objection, he put his hand over her jeans, touched her private parts, inserted his finger into her private parts and moved it in and out. She described the alleged act as “digital rape”. She further alleged that he told her that if “she agreed to have physical relations with him, he would make her rich”.
Following the assault, Gupta allegedly forced the victim into his vehicle, drove her to Wave City, and dropped her near her residence while threatening to murder her and her family if she spoke out.
Prior criminal case is no shield
Terrified for her family’s safety, the victim resigned on 8 April 2026, and was subsequently arrested in an extortion FIR filed by Gupta on 14 April 2026, alleging a Rs 10-crore demand.
After securing bail on 21 May 2026, the victim attempted to register her sexual assault complaint, but local police refused to lodge an FIR. She was forced to approach a magistrate, who ordered the FIR be registered under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.
Gupta argued that the sexual assault FIR was a retaliatory fabrication designed to force a compromise in the extortion case. The high court firmly rejected this defence.
In an order passed on 6 August, a bench of justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena noted that an earlier criminal case “does not give the petitioner immunity from investigation into separate allegations of sexual offences” . The bench ruled that the two cases arose from distinct occurrences and must be investigated independently.
Police rebuked
The high court reserved its sharpest criticism for the Ghaziabad Police’s preliminary report, which had advised against registering the FIR because the victim had failed to provide WhatsApp chats, call recordings, or social media evidence. The bench ruled that the absence of electronic material at a preliminary stage cannot be used to declare allegations false, emphasising that the allegations concerned physical acts, threats, and abuse of power.
Crucially, the court asserted that “the burden of conducting a lawful investigation cannot be shifted upon the prosecutrix”. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark 2012 Lalita Kumari judgment, the bench reiterated that police are legally mandated to register an FIR immediately if the complaint discloses a cognisable offence, without evaluating the ultimate truth of the allegations or shifting the investigative burden onto the victim.
“The statutory remedy before the magistrate cannot be rendered illusory by treating a preliminary police opinion as conclusive… the magistrate was not bound to accept the police officer’s preliminary opinion, particularly when the complaint disclosed cognizable offences and the material evidence required police investigation,” the court order read.
Observing a serious breakdown in the duty of law enforcement, the high court issued sweeping directives to the Uttar Pradesh DGP. The DGP has been ordered to personally supervise an inquiry into why local officers and the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, failed to register the victim’s FIR when she first approached them in July 2026.
Furthermore, the DGP must issue show-cause notices to all responsible officers—including the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and the Station House Officer of Wave City—to explain why they did not register the case. Further, the DGP has been asked to submit a personal compliance affidavit to the high court within four weeks. Meanwhile, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, has been directed to ensure a fair, impartial, and lawful investigation into the allegations against Gupta.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: Tejpal’s 10-yr jail sentences for rape, assault to run concurrently; to appeal conviction in SC