Shivaji Rathore 30-01-2026
In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgment, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus to the police machinery in Uttar Pradesh, directing mandatory prosecution of informants who lodge false, frivolous, or malicious FIRs. The Court made it unequivocally clear that failure of the police to act against false informants will expose police officers themselves to criminal prosecution, departmental action, and even contempt of court.
Statutory Obligation to Prosecute False Informants
A Bench presided over by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that where an investigation concludes that an FIR was lodged on false information, the Investigating Officer (IO) is statutorily bound to file a written complaint against the informant under Section 215(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 195(1)(a) CrPC).
The Court further warned that non-compliance with this statutory duty will attract prosecution of police officers under Section 199(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which penalises public servants for disobeying directions of law.
Case in Brief: Umme Farva v. State of U.P.
The ruling arose from an application filed under Section 528 BNSS by Umme Farva, who challenged criminal proceedings initiated against her on the basis of an FIR lodged by her former husband in 2023.
The allegations related to post-divorce online threats on Facebook. The police registered an FIR under Sections 504 and 507 IPC. However, after investigation, the allegations were found to be baseless, and a Final Report (Closure Report) was filed on 19 June 2024, exonerating the applicant.
Despite this, the informant-husband filed a protest petition, which was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Aligarh. The CJM rejected the closure report, took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, and summoned the applicant to face trial—prompting the present challenge before the High Court.
Fundamental Procedural Errors Flagged by the High Court
The High Court identified serious procedural and jurisdictional lapses, both by the police and the Magistrate:
1. Treating Non-Cognizable Offences as Cognizable
Sections 504 and 507 IPC are non-cognizable and bailable offences, yet the SHO wrongly registered an FIR instead of an NCR, thereby misusing the criminal process at the very inception.
2. Illegal Cognizance by the Magistrate The Magistrate:
Failed to convert the police report into a complaint as required by law, Took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC instead of Section 190(1)(a)
Proceeded as a “State case” rather than a complaint case
Summoned the accused without granting a hearing, in violation of the first proviso to Section 223 BNSS
The Court categorically held that a non-cognizable offence cannot be tried as a cognizable police case.
False FIRs and the Mandatory Duty of the Police
A crucial aspect of the judgment is the Court’s emphatic declaration that Sections 177 and 182 IPC (now Sections 212 and 217 BNS) cannot be rendered redundant.
The Bench held that:
“If the police machinery has been misused by furnishing false, frivolous, or misleading information, a written complaint under Section 215(1) BNSS must be filed. Failure to do so will render Sections 212 and 217 BNS redundant.”
Importantly, the Court ruled that Judicial Magistrates must not accept a closure report unless it is accompanied by a written complaint against the false informant.
Binding Directions Issued by the High Court
The Court issued comprehensive and binding directions applicable across the State:
Mandatory Complaint with Closure Report
Whenever a closure report is filed exonerating the accused, the IO must simultaneously file a written complaint against the informant (and witnesses, where applicable) for furnishing false information.
Role of Magistrates
Magistrates must: Examine the entire case diary
Invite and hear protest petitions where prima facie material exists If no offence is made out, proceed against the informant on the IO’s complaint under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS
Police Accountability
The Director General of Police (DGP) is directed to issue instructions to all police officers that failure to prosecute false informants will invite action under Section 199(b) BNS.
Time-Bound Compliance
All police authorities and judicial officers must implement these directions within 60 days.
Contempt Warning
Non-compliance with the judgment will amount to contempt of court, entitling the aggrieved party to approach the High Court.
Draft Complaint Templates Provided by the Court
In an unusual but highly practical move, the High Court annexed detailed draft formats (in both Hindi and English) for police officers to use while filing complaints against false informants.
The templates specifically require:- A clear finding that allegations were false, frivolous, and malicious
Reference to independent witnesses who negated the incident, Documentary contradictions to the FIR version This effectively removes any ambiguity or administrative excuse for non-compliance.
Final Outcome in the Case
On merits, the High Court:- Quashed the cognizance and summoning order dated 23 October 2024
Remanded the matter to the CJM, Aligarh, to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within three months
Case Title: Umme Farva v. State of U.P. and Another
