The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Uttar Pradesh to conduct a supervisory inquiry against senior Ghaziabad police officials, including the Commissioner of Police, for failing to register a woman’s complaint alleging digital rape, molestation, and intimidation by her former employer.
A division bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena ordered the state police chief to issue show-cause notices to the officers involved, including the station house officer, and submit a detailed report via affidavit within four weeks. The court emphasized that law enforcement agencies are legally required to register complaints disclosing cognizable offenses and gather evidence rather than determining the veracity of claims at the initial filing stage.
The directives were issued while dismissing a writ petition filed by the accused business owner, who sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him on July 28. The case includes charges under Sections 64, 74, 75, 76, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, covering rape, sexual harassment, assault with intent to disrobe, and criminal intimidation.
Judicial Critique of Police Inaction
Scrutinizing the administrative failure, the high court noted that the failure of both the local police station and the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner’s office to act on the victim’s July 7 complaint forced her to seek relief through an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The court ruled that an initial lack of electronic evidence, such as call logs or messaging history, does not justify refusing to lodge an FIR. The bench stated that magistrates are not bound by preliminary police opinions and that investigators are expected to collect electronic records, location data, and surveillance footage during the formal probe.
While ordering the DGP to examine whether the police’s July 16 report properly justified non-registration, the court also instructed the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to ensure an impartial investigation going forward, clarifying that its ruling does not constitute a final judgment on the merits of the allegations.
Background and Counterclaims
According to court filings, the complainant was hired as an administrator at the executive’s firm on October 4, 2025, on a monthly salary of Rs 45,000, which was later raised to Rs 65,000. She alleged that her employer made inappropriate advances, offered promotions in exchange for physical compliance, and threatened her family. She further detailed an incident in March 2026 where the employer allegedly molested and digitally penetrated her in his office cabin before she resigned on April 8.
The employer disputed the allegations, framing them as a retaliatory counter-blast to an ongoing extortion matter. He claimed he received a call on April 10 demanding Rs 10 crore, leading to an FIR on April 14 and the woman’s arrest on April 15. Following her release on bail on May 21, he alleged she contacted his clients and increased the extortion demand to between Rs 20 crore and Rs 25 crore, prompting him to file complaints with state authorities in early June.
Addressing the conflicting assertions, the high court stated that both narratives involved separate incidents requiring independent investigation and evidentiary proof. Although a police report submitted on July 16 labeled the woman’s claims as baseless, the local magistrate overrode the findings on July 20, paving the way for the formal registration of the sexual assault case.
