Allahabad HC Orders Inquiry into FIR Negligence
The Allahabad High Court has mandated an investigation into the actions of senior police officials in Ghaziabad, including the Commissioner, due to their failure to file a First Information Report (FIR) regarding allegations of digital rape and molestation. This directive was issued in the case titled Arpit Gupta v. State of UP and 2 Others.
Digital rape is legally defined as non-consensual penetration of a victim’s vagina or other private parts using fingers, thumbs, or toes. On August 6, a Division Bench composed of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena criticized the police for not registering an FIR based on the victim’s complaint, which led her to seek judicial intervention.
“It is perplexing why the concerned police station did not register an FIR upon receiving allegations that, on their face, disclosed cognizable offenses. Equally puzzling is why the victim’s complaint dated July 7, 2026, to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, did not lead to FIR registration or an investigation,” stated the Bench.
The Court highlighted that it is incumbent upon the police to document the information, investigate the claims, and gather evidence, rather than adjudicate the truthfulness of the allegations at the FIR registration stage.
Directive for Investigation
In light of these procedural lapses, the Court instructed the Director General of Police (DGP) of Uttar Pradesh to assess the matter, focusing on the conduct of personnel at Police Station Wave City and the implicated officers, including the Commissioner.
More Read
The DGP was ordered to send show-cause notices to these officials, questioning their reasons for not registering the FIR. “The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, shall personally supervise the inquiry and submit a report, via a personal affidavit, to this Court within four weeks,” the Court ordered.
The decision emerged from a petition by Arpit Gupta, owner of Parit Associates (OPC) Private Limited, who sought to dismiss the rape charges filed against him following an order from a magistrate.
Allegations and Court Proceedings
The complainant, an employee of Gupta, alleged in her application to the Ghaziabad court that he molested her in his office and threatened her against reporting the incidents. She claimed that in March 2026, Gupta committed digital rape by inserting his finger into her private parts and inappropriately touched her. She resigned on April 8, only for Gupta to file an extortion case against her on April 14, leading to her arrest and subsequent bail by the High Court.
More Read
Following her release, she lodged a complaint at the Wave City police station regarding molestation, digital rape, and intimidation. However, the police inaction prompted her to seek redress with the additional chief judicial magistrate in Ghaziabad.
The police claimed she could not provide supporting evidence like WhatsApp chats or call recordings, suggesting her accusations were exaggerated as a retaliatory measure against the extortion case. Despite this, the magistrate directed the police to register an FIR and investigate her claims.
As a result, the police registered a case under Sections 64 (rape), 74 (assault or criminal force to a woman intending to outrage her modesty), 75(2) (sexual harassment), 76 (assault with intent to disrobe), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Gupta then approached the High Court to nullify the FIR.
High Court’s Decision
The defense argued that the magistrate did not thoroughly consider the police report before ordering an investigation. They claimed the digital rape allegations were improbable given the employment relationship and the parties’ conduct.
The High Court observed that the case involves disputed facts requiring investigation and legal scrutiny. It noted the magistrate had not disregarded the police report. “The magistrate’s refusal to accept the police officer’s opinion does not imply the report was ignored. A pre-FIR police report is not binding if the complaint reveals cognizable offenses warranting investigation,” the Bench explained.
The Court also remarked that the absence of electronic evidence does not render the allegations false at the preliminary stage. Furthermore, it emphasized that the existence of an extortion case does not preclude an investigation into the rape allegations, and both cases should be independently examined as per the law.
More Read
Highlighting the need for a sensitive and fair investigation into workplace sexual harassment and assault allegations, the Court dismissed Gupta’s petition to quash the FIR.
Advocates Anuj Bajpai and Sanjay Kumar Mishra represented Gupta in the proceedings.
[Read Order]
