The Allahabad High Court recently issued a scathing rebuke to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Ballia, for registering an FIR in a completely unlawful and procedurally flawed manner. In a significant development that underscores the Court’s concern for due process and the sanctity of judicial instructions, the Court found that the SP had treated a High Court order itself as an FIR and had proceeded to record it directly in police records without following the legally mandated procedure. The bench termed the action “manifestly illegal” and “prima facie contumacious,” observing that such conduct indicated a clear misunderstanding or disregard for the fundamental legal principles governing criminal procedure.
The case stemmed from a long-standing legal battle involving one Devendra Kumar Singh, who had approached the Court in 2016, challenging an appointment made in the education department that he claimed was based on forged and manipulated service records. The controversy revolved around the retirement of one Ram Preet Singh, whose actual retirement date, according to the petitioner, was in 1991. However, documents submitted to justify the vacancy showed a retirement in 2000, raising red flags about possible forgery and falsification of official records. The discrepancy had far-reaching implications for employment and promotions within the department.
In the course of proceedings, the Court directed the Ballia SP to investigate the suspected manipulation, particularly focusing on how a duplicate service book was produced in place of the original. The Court had noted that the disappearance of the original document raised serious questions about the integrity of the administrative process and warranted immediate investigation. As such, the Court passed an order directing the SP to register an FIR and to carry out a fair and thorough investigation into the matter, including any collusion between government officials and educational institution authorities.
However, what followed surprised the Court and alarmed the judicial conscience. Instead of following the legal protocol by requiring a written complaint or statement that could form the basis of an FIR, the SP directly treated the High Court’s order as the FIR. This was not only legally untenable but also procedurally incorrect. Astonishingly, the FIR mentioned a fictitious complainant and used the text of the court order itself as the complaint, ignoring the established requirement that an FIR must be based on firsthand information provided to the police by a real informant, not by a court directive meant to initiate further lawful action.
Deeply concerned by this gross departure from legal norms, the High Court observed that a judicial order cannot substitute for the procedural act of filing a formal complaint. The Court made it clear that even when it orders the registration of a case, the actual mechanism for lodging an FIR must involve a written complaint or information recorded by a competent authority. The failure to follow this process rendered the action of the SP illegal on its face. Consequently, the Court directed the SP to file a personal affidavit explaining his conduct and show cause why fresh proceedings should not be initiated based on proper procedure. The Court granted him one week to respond and fixed a date for the next hearing to consider further action.
This ruling not only reiterates the need for strict compliance with procedural law but also sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies that judicial orders must be implemented with care and within the boundaries of legal procedure. The High Court’s stern stance affirms that institutional accountability must prevail and that even high-ranking officers are not immune from scrutiny when legal norms are violated.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.