'More Than Meets The Eye': High Court Questions UP Police's Failure To File Charge-Sheet Prepared A Year Ago, Seeks Home ACS Reply
| Court seeks UP Home ACS's personal affidavit over a charge sheet drawn up nearly a year ago but not finalized for filing in court.
The Allahabad High Court last week questioned the Uttar Pradesh Police's failure to submit a charge-sheet to the competent court in a case, despite having drawn it up nearly a year ago, remarking that "there is something more than meets the eye".
A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Rajeev Bharti directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit explaining why the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the concerned court and what remedial or punitive action would be taken in such matters.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Niharika Mishra, who sought directions to the police authorities to file the charge-sheet in an FIR lodged under provisions relating to criminal intimidation and publishing or transmitting obscene material.
The petitioner submitted that despite stating before the High Court on August 25, 2026, that the charge-sheet had been forwarded and was likely to be filed, the police authorities had still not submitted it.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), upon instructions, informed the Court that a charge-sheet dated October 26, 2025, had been submitted and sent to the Circle Officer on December 20, 2025.
However, the Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO) raised objections on January 13, 2026, after which the matter was remanded for further investigation.
The State submitted that an endeavor would be made to submit the charge-sheet before the concerned court expeditiously.
Against this backdrop, the Bench found that these instructions ran contrary to what it had recorded in its earlier order dated August 25, 2026.
It noted that the fact that the matter had been sent for further investigation following the objections raised by the APO had not been disclosed to the AGA when instructions were furnished in the earlier proceedings.
"Once the highest Court of the State, i.e. the High Court, was seized of the matter, it was expected that the authorities would come with complete instructions in the matter and there would not be any occasion for concealment of facts", the Bench observed.
The Court further noted that although the authorities had indicated that the charge-sheet had been drawn up, it had still not been finalized to enable its submission before the concerned court, despite the lapse of almost one year.
"There cannot be any occasion for the authorities to sit over the matter for a period of almost one year, as has been done in the instant case", it observed.
Furthermore, the bench also referred to Section 177 BNSS to note that although the provision does not prescribe a specific time-limit for submission of the police report, it categorically requires the report to be transmitted to the Magistrate "without delay".
The Bench said it has frequently encountered cases where authorities informed the Court that they had drawn up charge-sheets and sent them to supervisory authorities, but did not subsequently submit them to the concerned courts.
It added that authorities could not, on the one hand, sit on a charge-sheet despite having drawn it up and, on the other, litigants could not withdraw writ petitions based on instructions that the charge-sheet had been forwarded.
The Court observed that the State Government should frame appropriate rules or guidelines prescribing a time frame within which, after being drawn up, a charge-sheet must be submitted to the concerned court.
"There is something more than meets the eye!!" the Bench remarked, while questioning why the authorities were sitting over the matter despite Section 177 BNSS requiring police reports to be submitted "without delay".
Accordingly, the Court directed the ACS (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit within three weeks explaining why the charge-sheet had not been sent to the concerned court and why it was repeatedly being moved between the supervisory authority and the investigating officer without being submitted.
The affidavit must also indicate the remedial or punitive action to be taken in such matters.
The matter has been listed for November 19. The Court further directed that, if the personal affidavit is not filed, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) shall appear in person along with the records to assist the Court.
Meanwhile, the Bench expressed the expectation that the police report in the present case would be submitted before the concerned court expeditiously.