Back
orders DGP probe into police refusal to register FIR for sexual harassment
The has taken a stern view of police inaction in a sexual harassment case, directing the , to conduct an inquiry into why officials refused to register an FIR despite the complainant's allegations disclosing . A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by the accused employer seeking of the FIR that was eventually registered following a Magistrate's direction. The Court also ordered the , to ensure that the investigation proceeds fairly and impartially.
Background: The Complaint and the Police Response
The prosecutrix-complainant, a former administrative employee of a company owned by the petitioner, accused him of repeated sexual assault, molestation, threats, and sexual misconduct. Specifically, she alleged that in , the employer subjected her to digital penetration and threatened her and her family members. When she first approached the in Ghaziabad, her complaint was not registered. She then escalated the matter to the , but again no FIR was filed. Ultimately, she approached the concerned Magistrate under , which allows a Magistrate to order registration of an FIR if the police fail to act.
The police, in a report submitted to the Magistrate before the FIR was registered, claimed that the woman had been asked to provide WhatsApp chats, call recordings, or social-media conversations as corroborative evidence but had failed to produce any. The report dismissed her allegations as “exaggerated, false and baseless” and suggested they were a counterblast to an extortion case filed earlier by the employer against her. The Magistrate, however, was not convinced and directed the registration of the FIR on . Consequently, an FIR was registered under .
The Court’s Reasoning on
The petitioner-employer moved the High Court under seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that the allegations were false, improbable, and motivated by the earlier extortion proceedings. The High Court, however, refused to entertain the plea at this preliminary stage. The bench observed that the allegations were not limited to electronic communications; they included specific physical acts alleged to have occurred in the employer’s cabin, during travel, and in the course of the employment relationship. The Court noted that the absence of chats or recordings at the initial stage does not automatically establish that the allegations are false. “The absence of chats or recordings at the preliminary stage does not establish that the allegations are false,” the bench remarked.
The Court further emphasized that investigating agencies have the tools to gather electronic evidence, including call detail records, location data, subscriber details, and other digital footprints, after an FIR is registered. Therefore, it was improper for the police to treat the prosecutrix’s failure to produce such material as a reason to refuse registration. The bench underscored that “the burden of conducting a lawful investigation cannot be shifted upon the prosecutrix at the stage when she approaches the police with information disclosing .”
Mandatory Registration of FIR: Binding Precedents
The High Court relied on the ’s landmark decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013), which held that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence. It also cited to reiterate that the police have a to investigate . The bench stated, “The duty of the police is to receive the complaint, register an FIR where are disclosed, conduct a and place the result of the investigation before the competent court. The ultimate determination regarding the truth of the allegations, the credibility of witnesses, the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence and the guilt or innocence of the accused is for the criminal court to decide in accordance with law.”
The Court further observed that the police report submitted before registration of the FIR was only a preliminary opinion and could not amount to a final adjudication on the truth or falsity of the allegations. It expressed deep concern over the police’s initial refusal to register the FIR, remarking, “It is difficult to understand why the concerned police station did not register an FIR when the prosecutrix approached it with allegations which, on their face, disclosed .”
Directives to the DGP and Commissioner of Police
Against this backdrop, the Court directed the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, to initiate an inquiry into the conduct of the concerned police personnel, including the . The DGP was specifically tasked with examining whether the police report dated was prepared after a lawful and fair and whether the non-production of WhatsApp chats, call recordings, or social media material could legally justify the refusal to register an FIR. The DGP was directed to personally supervise the inquiry and submit a report by way of personal affidavit within four weeks, disclosing the officers examined, their explanations, the findings, and any action proposed or taken. Simultaneously, the , was directed to ensure that the investigation is conducted “fairly, impartially and in accordance with law.”
Legal Implications and Impact on Police Accountability
This judgment reinforces the constitutional and statutory obligations of the police to register FIRs upon receiving information that discloses . It serves as a reminder that preliminary assessments cannot substitute for a full investigation and that the police cannot shift the onto the complainant at the threshold. The directive to the DGP signals a growing judicial intolerance for by law enforcement, particularly in sensitive cases involving sexual violence.
For legal practitioners, this decision underscores the availability of remedies under Section 173(4) BNSS and the High Court’s willingness to scrutinize police conduct when statutory duties are circumvented. It also highlights the importance of the Lalita Kumari principle, which remains a cornerstone in ensuring prompt access to justice for survivors of sexual offences. The case is a significant addition to the jurisprudence on mandatory FIR registration and may influence future disciplinary actions against errant officers.
Conclusion
The ’s order not only protects the complainant’s right to have her grievance investigated but also holds the police accountable for their unjustified refusal to act. By directing a high-level inquiry, the Court has sent a clear message that systemic failures in the criminal justice system will not be overlooked. As the investigation proceeds and the DGP’s report is awaited, this case will likely serve as a reference point for similar challenges against police inaction in cases involving sexual harassment and assault.
