‘Lapses’ in FIR registration: Allahabad HC seeks report from DGP, principal secy (home)

The Allahabad High Court has taken a serious note of alleged lapses in FIR registration and directed the director general of police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, the principal secretary (home) and the SSP, Bareilly, to submit reports explaining the discrepancies and ensuring corrective measures.

The informant alleged physical relationship by the accused on a false promise of marriage. However, an FIR was registered under sections 498-A (cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari also directed the DGP and the principal secretary (home) to develop a mechanism to sensitise police officials. Besides, the court directed the SSP, Bareilly to take action against erring officials and explain the lapse.

The court in its order dated March 17 directed that the matter be listed in the week commencing April 27 for further hearing along with compliance reports.

Petitioner Shivam Singh had sought quashing of the charge sheet dated April 17, 2024 and cognisance order dated January 15, 2025 passed by the judicial magistrate, Bareilly, in case number 156 of 2025 arising out of case crime no 354 of 2023 under sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.

During the court proceedings, the counsel for Shivam Singh argued that the FIR did not disclose any offence under sections 498-A or 506 of the IPC and that no valid marriage existed between the parties, making the allegations vague. The state, however, contended that the applicant had established a physical relationship with the complainant on a false promise of marriage and government employment.

After hearing both sides, the court observed that the FIR and the victim’s statement prima facie indicated allegations of rape, yet no such charge was invoked, terming it a serious lapse. It further noted material discrepancies between the written complaint and the FIR, observing that while the complaint disclosed rape, the FIR failed to reflect the same, raising doubts about the fairness and correctness of the investigation.