Police Refusal To Register FIR On Woman's Sexual Harassment Complaint Against Employer: Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry By UP DGP

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to inquire as to why Ghaziabad Police officials refused to register an FIR on a woman's complaint against her employer alleging sexual harassment, molestation, inducement and criminal intimidation.

A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena passed the direction while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the accused employer.

The Court found it "difficult to understand" why the police had not registered an FIR when the woman's allegations, on their face, disclosed cognizable offences.

The Court directed the DGP to inquire into the conduct of the concerned police personnel, including the officers concerned and the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and submit a report by way of personal affidavit.

Case in brief

The prosecutrix-complainant had worked as an Admin in the company owned by the petitioner. She alleged that Gupta had repeatedly sexually assaulted her, molested her, threatened her and subjected her to sexual misconduct.

She further alleged that in March 2026, he committed an act of digital penetration and threatened her and her family members.

She initially approached the Wave City Police Station in Ghaziabad and thereafter, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, but no FIR was registered. She then approached the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The police submitted a report before the Magistrate stating that the woman had been asked to provide WhatsApp chats, call recordings or social-media conversations, but had been unable to produce such material.

The police report described her allegations as exaggerated, false and baseless and suggested that they were a pressure tactic or counter-blast to an earlier extortion case lodged by the employer.

The Magistrate, however, directed registration of the FIR and investigation on July 20, 2026.

The same was registered under Sections 64 (Rape), 74 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 75(2) (Sexual harassment), 76 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) BNS.

Faced with the FIR, the employer-accused moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that the allegations were false, improbable and motivated by the earlier extortion proceedings.

High Court's observations

Refusing to examine the disputed factual allegations at the FIR-quashing stage, the bench observed that the allegations required investigation and could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 226.

The Court noted that the allegations were not confined to electronic communications and included alleged physical acts in the employer's cabin, alleged molestation during travel, threats and alleged misuse of the employment relationship.

"The absence of chats or recordings at the preliminary stage does not establish that the allegations are false", the bench observed:

The Court further held that call detail records, location records, subscriber details and other electronic evidence could be collected by the investigating agency after registration of the FIR.

It, therefore, observed that it was not proper for the police to treat the non-production of such material by the prosecutrix as a reason to refuse registration of the FIR.

The Bench also observed that the "burden of conducting a lawful investigation cannot be shifted upon the prosecutrix at the stage when she approaches the police with information disclosing cognizable offences".

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh 2013, the High Court reiterated that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information discloses a cognizable offence.

The Court also relied upon Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to reiterate that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences. It further remarked thus:

"The duty of the police is to receive the complaint, register an FIR where cognizable offences are disclosed, conduct a fair investigation and place the result of the investigation before the competent court. The ultimate determination regarding the truth of the allegations, the credibility of witnesses, the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence and the guilt or innocence of the accused is for the criminal court to decide in accordance with law".

The Court further observed that the police report submitted before registration of the FIR was only a preliminary police opinion and could not amount to a final adjudication regarding the truth or falsity of the allegations.

The Bench strongly expressed concern over the failure of the police to register the FIR when the woman initially approached them. It observed thus:

"It is difficult to understand why the concerned police station did not register an FIR when the prosecutrix approached it with allegations which, on their face, disclosed cognizable offences".

Against this backdrop, the Court directed the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, to inquire into why the FIR was not registered and to examine the conduct of the police personnel concerned, including the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad.

The DGP was specifically directed to examine whether the police report dated July 16, 2026 was prepared after a lawful and fair preliminary assessment, and whether the failure to produce WhatsApp chats, call recordings or social media material could lawfully have been treated as a ground for refusing registration of the FIR.

The DGP was directed to personally supervise the inquiry and submit a report by way of personal affidavit within 4 weeks, disclosing the officers examined, their explanations, findings and the action proposed or taken.

The Court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to ensure that the investigation was conducted "fairly, impartially and in accordance with law".

Case title - Arpit Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571