Failure to Act on False Complaints Will Make Police Liable, Says Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has cautioned police officers against mechanically registering FIRs in non-cognizable cases and directed that whenever an investigation finds allegations to be false, the police are duty-bound to initiate action against the informant for furnishing false information, failing which the officers themselves may face legal and departmental consequences.

The bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri issued these observations while quashing criminal proceedings initiated against a woman in a matrimonial dispute, holding that the police and the magistrate had acted in violation of mandatory procedural safeguards, resulting in an abuse of the criminal process and infringement of the accused’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

An FIR was lodged in September 2023 by the woman’s former husband at Kwarsi police station in Aligarh under Sections 504 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that after their marital relationship ended, she defamed him and his daughter on social media and threatened him with dire consequences if he returned to India. At the time of the alleged incidents, the informant was working as a research professor in South Korea.

Following registration of the FIR, the police conducted an investigation and, on June 19, 2024, submitted a final report concluding that no offence was made out against the woman. The investigating officer found no material to substantiate the allegations of criminal intimidation or insulting conduct.

The informant thereafter filed a protest petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. Accepting the protest, the magistrate rejected the closure report and, by an order dated October 23, 2024, took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the woman to face trial under Sections 504 and 507 IPC, treating the matter as a state case.

Challenging this order, the accused approached the high court contending that both offences alleged were non-cognizable and that the police had no authority to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. It was argued that, at best, an NCR could have been registered and any investigation could have proceeded only after obtaining permission from a magistrate.

Accepting the submission, the high court held that Sections 504 and 507 IPC are non-cognizable, bailable offences punishable with imprisonment up to two years. In such cases, the court said, registration of an FIR itself was contrary to law and amounted to misuse of police powers from the very inception of the case.

Court further held that when an investigation in a non-cognizable case results in a police report, the law mandates that such a report must be treated as a complaint, with the investigating officer deemed to be the complainant. Cognizance in such circumstances could only be taken under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC as a complaint case, and not under Section 190(1)(b) as a police case.

Justice Giri also made it clear that where an FIR or NCR is found to be false, the investigating officer is under a statutory obligation to file a written complaint against the informant under Sections 177 and 182 IPC, corresponding to Sections 212 and 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in compliance with Section 195 CrPC and Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Failure to do so, the court observed, would render these provisions nugatory.

Court warned that if police officers fail to initiate such action in cases of false information, they may expose themselves to criminal liability for disobeying directions of law, apart from departmental proceedings. Court reiterated that strict adherence to the U.P. Police Regulations governing registration of FIRs and NCRs is mandatory and any deviation directly impacts fundamental rights.

On the magistrate’s role, court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had erred in treating a non-cognizable offence as a state case, failed to examine limitation, and summoned the accused without affording her an opportunity of hearing as required under the BNSS.

Holding that the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the high court quashed the cognizance and summoning order dated October 23, 2024, along with the entire criminal proceedings arising from the case.

Case Title: Umme Farva vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: January 14, 2026

Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri