False FIRs Under Scrutiny as Allahabad HC Orders Prosecution of Informants
A detailed Allahabad HC ruling strengthens due process, mandating prosecution where criminal law is invoked on false grounds.
In the case titled Umme Farva v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2026), the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has taken a firm stand against the growing misuse of criminal law through false First Information Reports (FIRs). Decided on 14 January 2026, the judgment authored by Hon’ble Justice Praveen Kumar Giri not only examined the illegality of registering FIRs in non-cognizable offences but also issued far-reaching directions mandating the prosecution of informants who furnish false information to the police.
The Court held that lodging a false FIR is not a mere procedural irregularity but a serious offence that undermines personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Importantly, it ruled that investigating officers are under a statutory obligation to initiate criminal proceedings against false informants under Sections 212 and 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 177 and 182 IPC), failing which they themselves may be held accountable under law.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband (Opposite Party No. 2) and his wife (the applicant). The husband lodged an FIR at Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh, alleging offences under Sections 504 and 507 IPC [now Sections 352 and 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023]. The allegations primarily related to criminal intimidation, abusive conduct, and alleged threats made through social media.
After the investigation, the police found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Consequently, a Final Report (Closure Report) was submitted on 19 June 2024, concluding that no offence was made out against the wife. However, instead of initiating action against the informant for giving false information, the Investigating Officer stopped at filing the closure report.
The husband then filed a protest petition, which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, accepted. The Magistrate rejected the final report and took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC (Section 210 BNSS), treating the matter as a State case and summoning the wife.
It was this cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding that came under challenge before the Allahabad High Court.
Issues Considered by the High Court
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of multiple interconnected legal issues:
- Whether Sections 504 and 507 IPC (Sections 352 and 351(4) of the BNS) are cognizable offences
- Whether police could register an FIR instead of an NCR
- Whether the Magistrate could treat a non-cognizable offence as a State case
- Whether false informants can escape prosecution merely because a closure report is filed
- Whether Investigating Officers have a statutory duty to prosecute informants who furnish false information
The Court’s analysis went beyond the facts of the case and addressed systemic lapses in police functioning and magisterial oversight.
Non-Cognizable Offences and Abuse of Police Power
The Court categorically held that offences under Sections 504 and 507 IPC are non-cognizable, bailable, and triable by a Magistrate. Therefore, the police had no authority to register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC (Section173 BNSS). At best, an NCR should have been recorded under Section 155 CrPC (now Section 174 BNSS).
By registering an FIR and conducting a full-fledged investigation without a Magistrate’s order, the police misused the process of law, violating not only statutory provisions but also Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty according to procedure established by law.
Mandatory Duty to Prosecute False Informants
One of the most impactful aspects of the judgment is the Court’s emphasis on Sections 177 and 182 IPC (now Sections 212 and 217 BNS). The Court held that:
- If an FIR or NCR is found to be false after investigation,
- The Investigating Officer is statutorily bound to file a written complaint against the informant under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC [now Section 215(1)(a) BNSS],
- Mere submission of a closure report is not sufficient compliance with the law.
Failure to initiate such prosecution, the Court warned, may expose police officers to liability under Section 199 (b) BNS (corresponding to Section 166A(b) IPC), which punishes public servants for knowingly disobeying legal directions.
This observation fundamentally shifts responsibility back onto the police machinery, ensuring that false complainants do not enjoy immunity.
Magistrate’s Error in Taking Cognizance
The High Court also found serious procedural illegality in the Magistrate’s order. Since the alleged offences were non-cognizable:
- Any police report filed after investigation must be treated as a complaint, not a charge-sheet.
- Cognizance, if at all, should have been taken under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC (complaint case), not under Section 190(1)(b) (police case).
- The Magistrate failed to follow mandatory safeguards, including providing the accused with an opportunity to be heard as required under the BNSS regime.
By ignoring these procedural mandates, the Magistrate effectively converted a private dispute into a State prosecution, which the High Court described as an abuse of the process of court.
Protection Against Malicious Prosecution
The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be permitted to become a tool of harassment. In matrimonial and family disputes, where emotions run high, there is an increasing tendency to lodge criminal cases to settle personal scores.
The judgment reinforces that:
- False FIRs are not harmless acts; they cause irreparable damage to reputation, liberty, and mental health.
- The State has a duty not only to protect genuine victims but also to protect innocent citizens from malicious prosecution.
- Investigating Officers must act as neutral fact-finders, not as silent facilitators of vendetta-driven litigation.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 12575 of 2025 is a landmark step toward restoring balance in the criminal justice system. By holding informants accountable for false complaints and reminding police and Magistrates of their statutory duties, the Court has reaffirmed that justice must protect the innocent as much as it punishes the guilty.
In an era where misuse of criminal law has become alarmingly common, this judgment serves as a strong deterrent against false FIRs and a reaffirmation of constitutional values embedded in Article 21.
Criminal law is not a weapon for personal revenge, and those who misuse it will be held accountable.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
