Matrimonial Harassment: Allahabad HC Mandates Criminal Action for False FIRs, Directs UP Police to File Complaints Against Informants

Prayagraj- In a landmark judgment aimed at curbing the misuse of the legal system, the Allahabad High Court has issued sweeping directives mandating criminal proceedings against individuals who file false First Information Reports (FIRs). Quashing a summoning order in a matrimonial dispute, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri laid down a stringent procedural framework to hold false complainants accountable.

The ruling came on an application filed by a woman seeking to quash proceedings against her under Sections 504 and 507 of the IPC, initiated by her husband. The police had filed a closure report, finding no evidence, but the magistrate took cognizance based on the husband's protest petition. The High Court found serious legal flaws in this process.

The case stems from a bitter marital fallout between Umme Farva, the applicant-wife, and her husband, Dr. Mahmood Alam Khan, a former research professor at Hanyang University in Seoul. According to the FIR lodged by the husband on September 28, 2023, at Kwarsi police station in Aligarh under Sections 504 and 507 IPC (intentional insult and anonymous criminal intimidation), the wife and her alleged live-in partner were defaming him and his daughter on Facebook, issuing threats to eliminate him if he returned to India.

The couple, married in 2008 under Islamic rites, had separated amid claims of cruelty, with the wife returning to her parental home after the birth of their son; the husband had filed a guardianship petition in family court in 2021, which remains pending.

Despite the offenses being non-cognizable and bailable, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment, the police erroneously registered it as a cognizable FIR under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS), bypassing the mandatory NCR protocol under Section 155 CrPC (Section 174 BNSS). Investigation concluded on June 19, 2024, with a closure report finding no evidence against the wife, yet the husband filed a protest petition on October 22, 2024.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, accepted it on October 23, 2024, rejecting the closure and taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC (Section 210(1)(b) BNSS) as a state case, summoning the wife without hearing her, a procedural flaw the High Court deemed a violation of Article 21's right to life and liberty.

Justice Giri, after hearing arguments from counsels including Satish Kumar Dubey for the wife and Najam Uz Zaman Khan for the husband, lambasted the initial FIR registration as an "abuse of process" from the outset. "The S.H.O. of the police station, rather than treating it as non-cognizable report under Section 155 Cr.P.C.... registered as First Information Report... treating the same as cognizable offence, by misusing the process of law, right from the beginning of the case," the court observed, citing U.P. Police Regulations paragraphs 97, 102, and 103 that mandate strict adherence to cognizable versus non-cognizable distinctions to uphold constitutional protections.

The bench emphasized that for non-cognizable cases like Sections 504 and 507 IPC (now Sections 352 and 351(4) BNS), any police report must be treated as a complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC (Section 2(1)(h) BNSS), with cognizance solely under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC (Section 210(1)(a) BNSS), not as a police case. Treating it otherwise, the court ruled, converts a summons case into an unwarranted warrant-like proceeding, denying the accused hearing rights under the First Proviso to Section 223 BNSS effective from July 1, 2024. "The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance... under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.... rather than as a complaint... This Court earlier in the matter of Prempal and others v. State of U.P.... passed an order... giving a detailed direction on Section 2(d) Explanation Cr.P.C.," the judgment noted, referencing a prior ruling from November 26, 2025.

Procedure for Magistrates and Police

A pivotal aspect of the verdict addresses false FIRs, directing investigating officers to invariably file written complaints under Sections 177 and 182 IPC (Sections 212 and 217 BNS) against informants providing misleading information, prosecutable only on public servant complaints per Section 195(1)(a) CrPC (Section 215(1)(a) BNSS).

Failure invites liability under Section 199(b) BNS (Section 166A(b) IPC) for disobeying investigation protocols. The court provided a detailed bilingual format for such complaints, mandating inclusion with every closure report, and instructed magistrates to reject incomplete final reports. "If after investigation, the Investigating Officer finds that no such incident occurred... the Investigating Officer is under statutory obligation, not only to submit a final report/closure report but also to submit a report of offence of Section 177 and 182 IPC... Otherwise, the concerned police officers are liable for committing an offence as mentioned under Section 199 (b) BNS," Justice Giri stated emphatically.

In broader guidelines, the High Court mandated the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to train officers on BNSS timelines, like notifying informants of investigation progress within 90 days under Section 193(3)(ii) and file false-information complaints routinely in misuse cases.

Magistrates must scrutinize case diaries for time-bar issues under Section 468 CrPC (Section 514 BNSS), afford accused hearings before summons, and treat protest petitions as complaints if extraneous material emerges, per Supreme Court precedents like Vishnu Kumar Tiwari (2019) and Bhagwant Singh (1985). "If the protest petition is dismissed/rejected... the Magistrate... shall proceed with the complaint filed under section 177 and 182 I.P.C.... against the informant and witnesses for giving false information to the police," the ruling clarified.

The order remands the case to the Aligarh magistrate for re-hearing within three months, exempting the lower court's explanation from adverse career impact. Legal experts hail it as a "procedural reset" against weaponized complaints, urging nationwide adoption to deter misuse of Section 498A-like extensions into defamation threats.