New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court directed Uttar Pradesh Police to mandatorily file written complaints against individuals who lodge false or malicious complaints, warning that failure to do so would make officers liable for prosecution.
In a 14 January order, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri ruled that whenever police submit a closure report exonerating an accused, they must file a formal complaint against the complainant and witnesses if the police machinery was misused through false, frivolous or misleading information.
The court directed the state’s director general of police (DGP) to instruct all officers that non-compliance would attract prosecution under Section 199(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which punishes public servants for disobeying legal directions.
“The Director General of Police, U.P. is directed to instruct all police officers within the State that, while completing the investigation, if a final report (closure report) exonerating the accused is submitted in the court, then in every case, where the police machinery has been misused by furnishing false, frivolous, or misleading information, a written complaint” must be filed, the court said.
The 32-page ruling came in a marital dispute. A woman, currently a professor in Seoul, South Korea, had approached the high court, challenging summons issued by an Aligarh court following her husband’s complaint of criminal intimidation and insult.
The bench also directed commissioners, superintendents of police, senior superintendents, investigating officers and station house officers to submit written complaints against informants and witnesses who provide false information in cases where closure reports favour the accused.
“..Judicial Magistrates/Courts shall also direct the Investigating Officer/Police for submitting written complaint against informant, as well as witnesses of the FIR as provided under section 195(1)(a) CrPC (prosecution for contempt of lawful authority, corresponding Section 215(1)(a) BNSS) in respect of furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of the alleged accused persons,” the court said.
The case background
The case dates to 2023, when the woman’s husband filed a complaint at Kwarsi police station in Aligarh against her under sections 504 (insulting) and 507 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. He alleged that his wife and her live-in partner were defaming him on social media using filthy language.
The complaint allegedly stemmed from a marital breakdown after the wife got involved in a relationship with a resident at her university in Seoul. The husband had also sought their child’s guardianship.
Police found no evidence of the allegations and filed a closure report. The husband protested this decision, prompting an Aligarh court to summon the woman under Section 190(1)(b) of CrPC, which empowers magistrates to initiate proceedings based on police reports even when police conclude that no case exists.
The wife challenged these summons before the Allahabad High Court, leading to the present order.
Also Read: From Ram Janmabhoomi to Ram Setu: RSS legal arm Adhivakta Parishad is everywhere, but nowhere
HC’s ruling & procedural lapses
While rejecting the wife’s plea to quash the summons, Justice Giri noted there were legal defects from the beginning in the prosecution’s stand.
Before the court, the woman had argued that she did not commit any offence and that there was no evidence to support her husband’s contention. However, the husband’s lawyers contended that the summoning order by the Aligarh court suffered from no legal defect.
The court observed both offences carried punishment of up to two years and were bailable and non-cognisable in nature, making them triable by a magistrate. This meant the case was a “summons” case rather than a warrant case, the court noted.
Still, the station house officer (SHO) wrongly registered an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which relates to cognisable offences. The court deemed this a misuse of legal process, and said the officer should have filed a report under Section 155, which deals with non-cognisable offences.
“The SHO of the police station, rather than treating it as non-cognizable report under Section 155 CrPC, registered First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 CrPC, (corresponding Section 173 BNSS) treating the same as cognizable offence, by misusing the process of law, right from the beginning of the case,” the court said.
The court also flagged procedural errors by Aligarh chief judicial magistrate who summoned the woman without providing an opportunity of hearing as prescribed under the proviso to Section 223 of the BNS. This provision entitles the accused to a mandatory pre-cognisance hearing where the magistrate must hear their side before taking up a case.
Additionally, the court noted that although a closure report was filed regarding the husband’s allegations, the investigating officer failed to file a written complaint against him under Sections 177 and 182 of the IPC, which relate to furnishing false information to public servants and giving false information to injure another person.
(Edited by Prerna Madan)
Also Read: Delhi Bar Council has rarely had women members before. This time, the mould is ready to break