Introduction:

In this important ruling, the Allahabad High Court delivered a strong message against the growing misuse of criminal law through false and malicious First Information Reports (FIRs), holding that the police are under a statutory obligation to prosecute informants who lodge false complaints, failing which the police officers themselves may face prosecution and departmental action. The case arose from an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by Umme Farva, who challenged the legality of criminal proceedings initiated against her at the instance of her former husband, Opposite Party No. 2, after their divorce. The husband had lodged an FIR in 2023 alleging that the applicant and her partner were threatening him through Facebook posts, leading the police to register a case under Sections 504 and 507 of the IPC. However, after investigation, the police found the allegations to be baseless and filed a final (closure) report on 19 June 2024, exonerating the applicant. Despite this, the husband filed a protest petition, which was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Aligarh, on 23 October 2024, who rejected the closure report, took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, and summoned the applicant to face trial. Challenging this order, the applicant approached the High Court contending that the Magistrate had mechanically accepted the protest petition without appreciating the investigation material and had committed serious procedural errors, while also ignoring the fact that the FIR itself was false and malicious, thereby violating her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments:

On behalf of the applicant-wife, it was argued that the entire prosecution was an abuse of the process of law as the police, after a full-fledged investigation, had categorically found the allegations to be false and had filed a closure report exonerating her. It was contended that the Magistrate acted in clear violation of statutory procedure by treating a non-cognizable offence as cognizable, without converting the police report into a complaint as required under the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC, and without taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. It was further argued that the Magistrate wrongly proceeded as if the case were instituted on a police report, whereas legally it could only proceed as a summons case instituted on complaint, after following due procedure. The applicant’s counsel emphasized that the Magistrate also failed to grant an opportunity of hearing as required under the first proviso to Section 223 BNSS, and therefore the summoning order suffered from serious procedural illegality. On the substantive side, it was argued that no ingredients of Sections 504 or 507 IPC were made out, and that the allegations were not supported by any credible material, making the continuation of proceedings nothing but harassment. In contrast, the counsel for the informant-husband (Opposite Party No. 2) argued that the Magistrate had rightly exercised jurisdiction in rejecting the final report and accepting the protest petition, as at the stage of cognizance only a prima facie case is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the Magistrate is not bound by the police conclusion and can independently assess the material to take cognizance. The State, through the AGA, attempted to support the Magistrate’s order but could not satisfactorily explain why the police had initially registered an FIR in a non-cognizable matter or why no action was initiated against the informant after the allegations were found to be false. The High Court, therefore, had to examine not only the legality of the summoning order but also the broader systemic failure of police and courts in dealing with false FIRs.

Judgment:

Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, speaking for the Bench, delivered a detailed and strongly worded judgment addressing both procedural irregularities in the present case and systemic lapses in handling false FIRs. At the outset, the Court held that the Magistrate committed a fundamental error by taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC for offences which were non-cognizable in nature, without first converting the police report into a complaint as required by law. The Court observed that the Magistrate neither proceeded under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC nor followed the procedure applicable to a summons case instituted on complaint, thereby treating a non-cognizable offence as cognizable in complete derogation of statutory provisions. The Court further noted that the Magistrate violated the first proviso to Section 223 BNSS by summoning the applicant without granting an opportunity of hearing, which vitiated the entire cognizance process. Simultaneously, the Court found fault with the police as well, holding that the SHO had misused the criminal process by registering an FIR in a matter that ought to have been treated as a non-cognizable report under Section 155 CrPC, thereby setting in motion a criminal prosecution without legal foundation. The Court held that these cumulative failures amounted to abuse of the process of court and violation of Article 21. Crucially, the Court went beyond the individual dispute and examined the duty of the Investigating Officer when an FIR is found to be false. It held that under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS (corresponding to Section 195(1)(a) CrPC), the IO is statutorily obligated to file a written complaint against the informant for offences under Sections 212 and 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (earlier Sections 177 and 182 IPC) for furnishing false information to a public servant. The Court categorically stated that these penal provisions cannot be allowed to become redundant, and if false FIRs go unpunished, it would encourage misuse of the criminal justice system as a tool of harassment. The Court further held that if police officers fail to initiate such prosecution, they would themselves become liable under Section 199(b) BNS for disobeying directions of law, in addition to departmental action. Accordingly, the Court issued sweeping directions to the Director General of Police, Commissioners of Police, SSPs, SPs, Investigating Officers, SHOs, Forwarding Officers and Public Prosecutors, mandating that in every case where a closure report is filed due to false or malicious allegations, a written complaint against the informant and witnesses must also be filed before the Magistrate. The Court directed that Magistrates must not accept final reports unless accompanied by such complaints, and if a protest petition is rejected, proceedings must continue on the complaint against the false informant. It further warned that non-compliance would invite contempt of court proceedings. The Court directed that these instructions must be implemented across the State within 60 days. Significantly, the Court also provided draft templates in Hindi and English for filing complaints against false informants, ensuring uniformity and ease of compliance by police officers. On the merits of the case, the Court quashed the summoning order dated 23 October 2024, and remanded the matter to the CJM, Aligarh, to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within three months, thereby granting immediate relief to the applicant while also strengthening systemic safeguards against false prosecutions.