Why was rape FIR not registered? Allahabad High Court seeks answers from UP top cop

“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 cognizable offences. It is equally difficult to understand why the complaint dated July 7, 2026 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, did not result in registration of an FIR or in an effective investigation. The failure to register the FIR at the first instance compelled the prosecutrix to approach the Magistrate under Section 173(4) BNSS. 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 said on August 6.

The case arose from allegations by the accused man’s former employee. He disputed them, arguing that the FIR was a counter-blast to an earlier extortion case involving the woman. The high court said these disputed issues required investigation and could not be decided in the writ proceedings.

Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena said police must register complaints disclosing cognizable offences and investigate them. (Image enhanced using AI)

Alleged sexual misconduct

According to the record, the woman joined his company as an ‘Admin’ on October 4, 2025, with a monthly salary of Rs 45,000, which was later increased to Rs 65,000.

She alleged that the man called her to his cabin, promised a higher position if she obeyed him, and molested her. She further alleged that he threatened her and her family and repeatedly contacted her after office hours.

She alleged that in March 2026, he again called her to his cabin and sexually assaulted her. According to her allegation, he touched her breast and private parts and digitally penetrated her. She also alleged that he threatened her after she resisted and offered to make her rich if she agreed to have physical relations with him.

The woman resigned on April 8. She later stated that she approached the police, but no action was taken. She then complained to the commissioner of police, Ghaziabad, on July 7. When no FIR was registered, she approached the additional chief judicial magistrate under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Extortion case

The accused alleged that he received a call on April 10 demanding Rs 10 crore, following which an FIR was registered on April 14. The woman was among three persons arrested on April 15 and was granted bail on May 21.

After her release, he alleged that she contacted his clients and employees and raised the alleged demand to Rs 20-25 crore. He complained to police on June 4 and to the Chief Minister’s Integrated Grievance Redressal System (CM IGRS) portal on June 3.

He called the sexual-assault allegations an afterthought and counter-blast. The woman disputed this. The high court said both versions required proof and the two FIRs concerned different alleged occurrences.

Court rejects challenge to FIR

• Before directing the FIR’s registration, the magistrate sought a police report.
• In its July 16 report, police said the woman had not provided WhatsApp chats, call recordings or social media conversations and described her allegations as false, baseless and a possible counter-blast.
• The magistrate nevertheless ordered registration on July 20.
• The accused challenged the order, but the high court held that the magistrate had considered the report and was not bound by the police’s preliminary opinion.
• “A police report submitted at the pre-FIR stage is not binding upon the Magistrate where the complaint, taken at its face value, discloses cognizable offences requiring investigation,” the court held.
• It said the absence of electronic evidence did not establish that the allegations were false and that investigators could examine call records, location data, CCTV footage and other evidence.

The court directed the DGP to examine why the woman’s complaint was not registered and why her July 7 complaint to the commissioner of police did not lead to an FIR or effective investigation.  The DGP must issue show-cause notices to the concerned officers, including the SHO, examine the July 16 police report and determine whether the lack of electronic evidence could lawfully justify refusing registration.

The DGP must personally supervise the inquiry and submit a report by affidavit within four weeks. The commissioner of police, Ghaziabad, was directed to ensure a fair and impartial investigation. The high court dismissed Gupta’s petition but clarified that it had made no final finding on the merits or truth of the allegations.