The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom has noticed that the police can not refuse to register an FIR on a sexual harassment criticism moved earlier than it merely as a result of the Prosecutrix has not produced WhatsApp chats, name recordings or different materials proof in help of her allegations.
The Courtroom additional noticed that the burden of conducting a lawful investigation can’t be shifted upon the prosecutrix on the stage when she approaches the police with data disclosing cognizable offences.
A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena made the observations whereas dismissing a petition searching for quashing of an FIR alleging sexual harassment, molestation, digital penetration and prison intimidation towards the proprietor of an organization the place the prosecutrix was employed.
The Courtroom additionally directed the Director Common of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to inquire as to why Ghaziabad Police officers refused to register an FIR on a girl’s criticism towards her employer alleging sexual harassment, molestation, inducement and prison intimidation.
Case briefly
The prosecutrix-complainant was working as an Admin within the firm owned by the petitioner. She alleged that the accused-applicant had repeatedly sexually assaulted her, molested her, threatened her and subjected her to sexual misconduct.
She additional alleged that in March 2026, he dedicated an act of digital penetration and threatened her and her members of the family.
She initially approached the Wave Metropolis Police Station in Ghaziabad and thereafter, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, however no FIR was registered. She then approached the involved Justice of the Peace underneath Part 173(4) BNSS.
The police submitted a report earlier than the Justice of the Peace stating that the girl had been requested to offer WhatsApp chats, name recordings or social-media conversations, however had been unable to supply such materials.
The police report described her allegations as exaggerated, false and baseless and recommended that they have been a strain tactic or counter-blast to an earlier extortion case lodged by the employer.
The Justice of the Peace, nevertheless, directed the registration of the FIR and investigation on July 20, 2026.
The identical was registered underneath Sections 64 (Rape), 74 (Assault or prison power to lady with intent to outrage her modesty), 75(2) (Sexual harassment), 76 (Assault or use of prison power to lady with intent to disrobe) and 351(3) (prison intimidation) BNS.
Confronted with the FIR, the employer-accused moved the Excessive Courtroom searching for quashing of the FIR, arguing that the allegations have been false, unbelievable and motivated by the sooner extortion proceedings.
Excessive Courtroom’s observations
On the outset, the Courtroom refused to look at the disputed factual allegations on the FIR-quashing stage, because it confused that the allegations required investigation and couldn’t be conclusively decided in proceedings underneath Article 226.
The Courtroom famous that the allegations weren’t confined to digital communications and included alleged bodily acts within the employer’s cabin, alleged molestation throughout journey, threats and alleged misuse of the employment relationship.
“The absence of chats or recordings on the preliminary stage doesn’t set up that the allegations are false“, the bench noticed:
The Courtroom additional held that decision element information, location information, subscriber particulars and different digital proof may very well be collected by the investigating company after registration of the FIR.
It, subsequently, noticed that it was not correct for the police to deal with the non-production of such materials by the prosecutrix as a motive to refuse registration of the FIR.
The Bench additionally noticed that the “burden of conducting a lawful investigation can’t be shifted upon the prosecutrix on the stage when she approaches the police with data disclosing cognizable offences“.
Referring to the Supreme Courtroom’s judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh 2013, the Excessive Courtroom reiterated that registration of an FIR is obligatory the place the data discloses a cognizable offence.
The Courtroom additionally relied upon Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to reiterate that the police have a statutory proper and obligation to research cognizable offences. The Bench noticed:
“The police are required to register the data, examine the allegations and accumulate proof. They aren’t required to determine the final word fact or falsity of the allegations on the stage of registration“.
It additional remarked thus:
“The obligation of the police is to obtain the criticism, register an FIR the place cognizable offences are disclosed, conduct a good investigation and place the results of the investigation earlier than the competent courtroom. The final word willpower relating to the reality of the allegations, the credibility of witnesses, the admissibility and sufficiency of proof and the guilt or innocence of the accused is for the prison courtroom to determine in accordance with regulation“.
The Courtroom additional held that the report ready by the police earlier than registration of the FIR was solely a preliminary police opinion and couldn’t quantity to a remaining adjudication relating to the reality or falsity of the allegations.
The petitioner additionally relied on an earlier extortion FIR lodged towards the prosecutrix and argued that the sexual-offence allegations have been a counter-blast.
The Excessive Courtroom, nevertheless, famous that the 2 FIRs involved completely different alleged occurrences and that the existence of the sooner case didn’t, by itself, set up that the next allegations have been false. The allegations within the sexual criticism have been required to be investigated in accordance with regulation, the bench mentioned.
The Courtroom accordingly refused to quash the FIR. Nevertheless, it expressed concern over the police’s failure to register the case when the prosecutrix initially approached them. It noticed thus:
“It’s obscure why the involved police station didn’t register an FIR when the prosecutrix approached it with allegations which, on their face, disclosed cognizable offences“.
The Courtroom consequently directed the Director Common of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to inquire into why the FIR was not registered and to look at the conduct of the involved police personnel, together with the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad.
The DGP was particularly directed to look at whether or not the police report dated July 16, 2026 was ready after a lawful and truthful preliminary evaluation, and whether or not the prosecutrix’s failure to supply WhatsApp chats, name recordings or social-media materials might lawfully have been handled as a floor for refusing registration of the FIR.
The DGP has been directed to personally supervise the inquiry and submit a report by means of private affidavit inside 4 weeks, disclosing the officers examined, their explanations, findings and the motion proposed or taken.
The Courtroom additionally directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to make sure that the investigation was performed “pretty, impartially and in accordance with regulation”.
Case title – Arpit Gupta vs State of U.P. and a couple of others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571
Case Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571
