The Delhi High Court has pulled up both Delhi Police and Uttar Pradesh Police for failing to register an FIR and initiate a timely investigation after a 20-year-old Delhi youth, Harsh Kumar Sharma, was found dead in mysterious circumstances inside his car in Greater Noida.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while hearing a petition filed by the victim’s sister, expressed “serious consternation” over what he described as a classic case of “passing the buck” between two police forces, which resulted in the loss of crucial forensic evidence.
Harsh Kumar Sharma had gone missing on December 3, 2024, after leaving for college in Noida. He was later discovered lifeless in his vehicle, which reportedly contained a carbon monoxide cylinder, parked in an isolated area of Greater Noida. Despite repeated representations by the family, neither Delhi Police nor UP Police registered an FIR or initiated a murder investigation.
The High Court, terming the situation “inconceivable,” noted that any trained officer would have immediately understood the evidentiary value of the vehicle where the body was found. “The car was the repository of a huge amount of forensic evidence… which would contain vital clues about the provenance of the offence,” the court said, criticizing the UP Police for returning the car to the family before gathering such material.
The court further slammed the failure to record witness statements or collect DNA and fingerprint evidence, calling it a serious lapse.
Taking a stern view, the court ordered Delhi Police to register a “Zero FIR” under Section 103 (murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and other applicable provisions and transfer all collected material to the Uttar Pradesh Police within a week. The court clarified that a Zero FIR is to be registered regardless of territorial jurisdiction and later transferred to the appropriate police station.
The UP Police were also directed to register an FIR under relevant provisions and commence investigation without any further delay. The court made it clear that inquest proceedings under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) do not preclude the registration of an FIR where there is sufficient material to suspect homicide.
“This court is of the view that there was more than ample material available with the UP Police to proceed to register an FIR for the offence of murder, straightaway,” the judgment stated.
Delhi Police defended their inaction, stating that no complaint had been made alleging foul play within their jurisdiction. UP Police, in turn, maintained that the case was one of “suspicious death” and inquest proceedings were ongoing, with no conclusive evidence yet pointing to homicide.
However, the High Court dismissed these contentions, stating that waiting for the inquest conclusion before registering an FIR in such cases was legally unwarranted and operationally flawed.
In disposing of the petition, the court recorded its “regret at the dereliction of duty” by both police forces, emphasizing that investigative inertia and jurisdictional disputes should never stand in the way of justice—especially when valuable evidence is at risk of being lost.
