Back
refuses to quash digital rape FIR against Arpit Gupta, orders police inquiry
In a significant ruling, the dismissed a plea by Arpit Gupta, the owner of a private company, seeking to quash an FIR alleging digital rape, molestation, and criminal intimidation lodged by a former female employee. The Court, while refusing to interdict the investigation, also directed a high-level inquiry against , including the Commissioner, for their failure to register the FIR despite the complaint disclosing .
The of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena rejected the petition filed under , holding that the allegations made by the , taken at face value, disclosed serious offences under the , and that the matter required a thorough investigation. The Court further observed that the FIR at this stage would be unjust and would discourage similar complaints by women employees.
The Backstory: A Tale of Two FIRs
The case revolves around a complaint by a woman who was employed as an Admin at Parit Associates (OPC) Private Limited, owned by the petitioner Arpit Gupta, in Gautam Budh Nagar. The alleged that Gupta repeatedly called her to his cabin, offered a higher position if she obeyed him, and subsequently molested her on multiple occasions, including an incident in when he allegedly committed digital rape by inserting his finger into her private part. She claimed that Gupta threatened to kill her and her family if she resisted, and later colluded with police to register a false extortion case against her—Case Crime No. 294/2026—after she resigned in .
The , after her arrest and release on in the extortion case, approached the and later the , with her complaint, but no FIR was registered. She then filed an application under , before the , who directed the registration of an FIR against Gupta. The FIR was subsequently lodged under .
Arpit Gupta, in his petition, argued that the FIR was a "" to the extortion case he had filed, and that the allegations were "" and "." He relied on a police report dated , which had termed the allegations "false and baseless" and noted the 's inability to produce WhatsApp chats or call recordings.
Court's Reasoning: Investigating Allegations, Not Deciding Credibility
The High Court, after examining the materials, observed that the Magistrate had not mechanically passed the order but had considered the police report and the nature of the allegations. The Court emphasized the of the police to register an FIR whenever information discloses a cognizable offence, citing the 's decision in . It noted that the police's could not be treated as a conclusive finding, especially when the allegations involved physical acts, threats, and misuse of an employment relationship.
The Bench also distinguished the two FIRs, pointing out that they arose from different occurrences and could be investigated independently.
"The existence of Case Crime No. 294/2026 does not bar investigation into Case Crime No. 0194/2026,"
the Court wrote. It further rejected the petitioner's contention that the allegations were absurd, noting that the complaint disclosed specific details of places, circumstances, and the nature of the alleged conduct.
Key Observations: A Scathing Note on Police Inaction
The Court's judgment contained strong observations about the conduct of the police. It questioned why the police station failed to register the FIR when the first approached it, and why the complaint to the Commissioner of Police remained unheeded. The Court directed the , to conduct an inquiry into the lapses and issue to the concerned officials, including the Station House Officer of and the .
"The police are required to register the information, investigate the allegations and collect evidence. They are not required to decide the ultimate truth or falsity of the allegations at the stage of registration,"
the Court observed. It also noted that the police report criticized the
for not producing electronic evidence, when the burden of collecting such evidence lay with the investigating agency after registration of the FIR.
Final Decision and Implications
The Court dismissed the petition, allowing the investigation to proceed in Case Crime No. 0194/2026. It clarified that the observations were confined to the limited question of whether were disclosed, and did not reflect on the merits of the case. The Director General of Police has been directed to submit a personal affidavit before the Court within four weeks, detailing the findings of the inquiry and any action taken.
This ruling reinforces the settled legal position that courts should not quash FIRs when allegations disclose offences, especially in cases of workplace sexual harassment and assault. It also serves as a stern reminder to police authorities that failure to register FIRs in , particularly involving women complainants, may invite judicial scrutiny.
Case Name: Court: Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena Date of Judgment: Sections Involved: Sections 64, 74, 75(2), 76, 351(3) of the
