The Allahabad high court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to mandatorily initiate prosecution against individuals who lodge false or malicious FIRs.

Justice Praveen Kumar Giri passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by one Umme Farva of Aligarh.

The court held that if an investigation reveals an FIR was based on false information, the investigating officer (IO) is “statutorily obligated” to file a formal complaint against the informant.

The court also warned that failure to initiate such action would make the police officers concerned liable for prosecution under Section 199(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with public servants disobeying directions of law, apart from departmental action.

The bench passed this order on an application filed u/s 528 BNSS by one Umme Farva. It was her case that her husband/Informant (Opposite Party No. 2) had lodged an FIR in 2023, where he alleged that after their divorce, the applicant and her partner were threatening him on Facebook.

The police registered the case against the wife-applicant under Sections 504 and 507 of the IPC.

However, upon investigation, the police found the allegations to be baseless and filed a Final Report (Closure Report) on June 19, 2024, and exonerated the wife. The husband then filed a Protest Petition.

On October 23, 2024, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Aligarh allowed the protest petition and rejected the closure report. The judicial officer also took cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and summoned the wife-applicant to face trial in the “State Case”.

The applicant-wife then moved the present petition challenging the order of the Magistrate as her counsel argued that no offence was made out against her and the Judicial Officer concerned failed to appreciate the evidence collected during the course of investigation in its right perspective.

On the other hand, the counsels for the Informant-husband (opposite party no.2) argued that there was no illegality or infirmity in the cognizance-cum-summoning order as a prima facie case was made out against the applicant.

The Court noted that the Judicial Magistrate had neither converted the police report disclosing ‘non cognizable offence’ into ‘complaint’ as per the provision of Explanation to Section 2(d) of CrPC, nor took cognisance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC to proceed as a ‘trial of summons-case’ instituted on complaint.

The HC also found faults with the Magistrate’s move of taking cognisance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC and summoning the applicant-wife without affording her an opportunity of hearing provided under First Proviso of Section 223 BNSS, and also erroneously proceeded as a trial of a summons case instituted on a police report rather than a complaint.

On the other hand, the Court also noted that even the SHO had misused the process of law in the beginning by registering an FIR treating the case as cognizable offence, rather than treating it as non-cognizable report under Section 155 CrPC.

The Court further provided that if the observation made by it is not followed in letter and spirit, it would amount to contempt of court and the aggrieved person may approach this Court for appropriate action against such contemptuous conduct of the police authorities as well as the judicial officers.

All the exercise shall be done within 60 days from the date of this order by the police authorities as well as the judicial officers to regulate judicial proceedings in accordance with law, the bench added.

Importantly, the High Court expressly provided a draft template (in both Hindi and English) for police officers to use when filing complaints against false informants.

The format includes specific averments that the allegations were found “false, frivolous and malicious” and lists the necessary witnesses, including independent witnesses who negated the incident.

On the merits of the case, the Court quashed the cognizance order dated October 23, 2024, and remanded the matter to the CJM, Aligarh, to pass a fresh order within three months.

Case title – Umme Farva vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 25