Category: Legal

THANE (Monday, March 30, 2026) — The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Thane has awarded a compensation of ₹64.75 lakh to the family of a 42-year-old businessman from Pune who died in a road accident in 2022. The tribunal rejected the insurance company’s claims of “contributory negligence,” holding the offending motorcyclist entirely responsible for the fatal collision.

---

The Incident: A Fatal Road Crossing

The victim, identified as Yuvraj Bhagawan Jagtap, operated a successful automobile servicing business in Pune.

• Date of Accident: November 24, 2022.
• Location: Near Chikhali in Pune district.
• The Crash: Jagtap was carefully crossing the road when a speeding motorcycle struck him with immense force.
• Fatal Injuries: He sustained severe head trauma and was hospitalized for nearly three weeks. Despite intensive medical intervention, he succumbed to his injuries on December 13, 2022.

---

Judicial Findings and Liability

In an order passed on March 25, 2026, MACT member R.V. Mohite scrutinized the police investigation and eyewitness accounts.

Finding	Details
Fault	The motorcyclist was found to be driving at “high and excessive speed” without regard for traffic conditions.
Victim Conduct	The tribunal noted Jagtap was “walking on the road with proper care and caution,” dismissing the insurer’s claim that he was negligent.
Liability	The motorcycle owner and the Thane-based insurance company were ordered to pay the compensation jointly and severally.
Ex Parte Order	As the motorcycle owner failed to appear before the tribunal, the matter was decided ex parte against him.

Compensation Breakdown

While the family had initially calculated damages at over ₹2.19 crore, they had restricted their formal claim to just ₹1 lakh due to a severe financial crunch at the time of filing. However, the tribunal applied the principle of “just compensation” to award the higher amount.

1. Principal Amount: ₹64,75,000.
2. Interest: 9% per annum from the date the petition was filed until the realization of the amount.
3. Income Assessment: The tribunal assessed Jagtap’s notional income at ₹35,000 per month.
4. Financial Security: A significant portion of the award is to be placed in fixed deposits in the names of the victim’s wife and two children to ensure their long-term security.

---

Sources

• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Tribunal awards Rs 64.7 lakh compensation for Pune businessman’s death after accident” (March 30, 2026).
• Law Trend: “Thane MACT Awards ₹64.75 Lakh Compensation to Family of Pune Businessman” (March 30, 2026).
• Mid-Day: “Thane tribunal grants Rs 64.75 lakh to family of Pune man killed in 2022 accident” (March 30, 2026).
• Rediff News: “Pune businessman’s family gets Rs 64.7 lakh compensation” (March 30, 2026).

PRAYAGRAJ (Sunday, March 29, 2026) — In a significant clarification of family and maintenance laws, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to provide maintenance to her parents-in-law. Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that while a “moral obligation” may exist, it cannot be enforced as a legal mandate unless specifically categorized under the statutes.

---

The Legal Transition: From CrPC to BNSS

The ruling comes as the judiciary navigates the transition from the old Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

• The Specific Provision: The court was interpreting Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 of the BNSS), which governs the order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
• The Scope of the Law: The bench emphasized that the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right. This means it is strictly limited to the categories of persons expressly mentioned in the text of the law.
• The Exclusion: Since “daughter-in-law” is not listed as a person from whom parents-in-law can demand maintenance under this specific section, the court held that no such legal liability can be imposed upon her.

---

Key Judicial Observations

The Court made a clear distinction between social expectations and legal requirements in the Indian family structure.

Principle	Court’s Finding
Statutory Mandate	Maintenance can only be claimed from those mentioned in the Act (spouse, children, etc.).
Moral vs. Legal	A moral obligation, no matter how compelling, is not enforceable in a court of law without a statute.
Liability of Son	The legal obligation to maintain parents remains with the biological or legal children (sons/daughters).

“The right to claim maintenance is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned in the section itself, and the parents-in-law do not fall within that ambit,” the court stated in its order.

---

Impact on Maintenance & Welfare of Parents Act

While this ruling clarifies the position under Section 144 of the BNSS, it is important to note how it interacts with other specialized laws:

1. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Under this separate Act, “children” and “relatives” (who are legal heirs) can be held responsible. However, the High Court’s current ruling specifically addresses the summary proceedings under the criminal/civil procedure code.
2. Property Rights: This ruling does not affect cases where a daughter-in-law may be asked to vacate a house or provide support if she has inherited her deceased husband’s share of the parental property.

---

Sources

• The Times of India: “Daughter-in-law not legally bound to look after maintenance of parents-in-law: Allahabad HC” (March 29, 2026).
• Live Law: “Section 125 CrPC/144 BNSS: Daughter-In-Law Not Legally Obliged To Maintain Parents-In-Law, Rules Allahabad High Court” (March 28, 2026).
• Bar and Bench: “Allahabad High Court clarifies maintenance liability of daughter-in-law” (March 29, 2026).
• Official Court Order: Smt. [Name Redacted] v. State of U.P. and Others (Allahabad High Court, March 2026).

JAIPUR (Sunday, March 29, 2026) — The Rajasthan High Court has issued a significant interim order prohibiting night safaris and the use of drones within the Jawai Leopard Reserve in Pali district. Citing grave concerns over “unregulated tourism” and its impact on the local ecosystem, the court has restricted all wildlife-spotting activities to a strict window between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM, mirroring the standards followed at Ranthambore National Park.

---

The Ruling: “Ecological Equilibrium” Under Threat

The division bench, comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah, noted that while Jawai is globally recognized for the unique coexistence of the Rabari community and Indian leopards, this balance is being “imperilled” by commercial exploitation.

• Directive on Night Safaris: The court explicitly banned any safari or activity to locate wildlife beyond the 6 AM–7 PM window.
• Drone & Spotlight Ban: Any individual or operator found using drones, searchlights, spotlights, or high-intensity torches to track leopards—especially near their caves—must be immediately restrained.
• Legal Mandate: The bench invoked Article 48A of the Constitution, stating that the protection of wildlife is an essential obligation linked to the Right to Life (Article 21).

The Case: Apoorva Agrawat vs. State of Rajasthan

The order came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Pali resident Apoorva Agrawat.

Argument	Detail
Stress to Wildlife	Drones and spotlights directed at leopard caves during dusk cause severe stress and disrupt natural hunting patterns.
Regulatory Vacuum	Despite its ecological importance, Jawai currently lacks the formal protective framework of a National Park or Sanctuary, leading to a “regulatory gap.”
Tourism Misconduct	The petitioner alleged rampant violations of ecological norms by local hospitality personnel and safari operators.

[Image: Map of the Jawai Bandh region in Pali, Rajasthan, showing the proximity of human settlements to the granite hills inhabited by leopards]

---

Enforcement and Next Steps

The court has directed the Rajasthan state government to take prompt “penal and administrative” action against violators, including safari vehicle operators and hotel staff.

1. Reporting Misconduct: Any interference with wildlife must be reported immediately and dealt with “expeditiously in accordance with law.”
2. State Reply: The Rajasthan government and other respondents are required to file their formal responses before the next hearing.
3. Future Measures: The bench indicated it will contemplate additional protective measures on the next date of hearing, scheduled for April 20, 2026.

Sources

• Live Law: “Rajasthan High Court Cracks Down On Unregulated Jawai Tourism; Bans Night Safaris, Use Of Drones” (March 28, 2026).
• The Indian Express: “No more night safaris: Why Rajasthan HC just banned drones and spotlights in Jawai Leopard Reserve” (March 28, 2026).
• The Times of India: “HC bans night safari at Jawai leopard reserve” (March 27, 2026).
• The Economic Times: “Rajasthan HC prohibits night safaris, drone usage in Jawai Leopard Reserve” (March 29, 2026).

NEW DELHI (Sunday, March 29, 2026) — The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken serious note of alleged massive environmental degradation in the Kothal Gate area of Dehradun. Following a petition that claims illegal activities have persisted for over a decade, the tribunal has ordered the immediate formation of a joint committee to investigate tree felling, forest encroachment, and unauthorized mining.

---

The Allegations: Defiance of “Stop Work” Orders

The case, heard by the principal bench in New Delhi, stems from an application filed by Pradeep Sharma. The petition details a long-standing pattern of ecological damage attributed to a private developer.

• Primary Accused: Jain Developers.
• Core Allegations: Large-scale illegal felling of trees, unauthorized mining operations, and encroachment onto protected forest land.
• Regulatory Failure: The petitioner submitted that these activities have continued unabated despite a formal “Stop Work” notice issued as far back as 2014.
• Judicial Observation: A bench led by Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava noted that the case raises “significant questions” regarding environmental compliance and the enforcement of regulatory standards.

The Joint Investigative Committee

The NGT has mandated a time-bound probe by a panel of high-ranking officials. The committee is tasked with verifying the claims on the ground and identifying those responsible.

Committee Composition	Key Mandates
Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)	Conduct a comprehensive site inspection.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Uttarakhand	Assess the true extent of environmental damage.
District Magistrate (DM), Dehradun	Recommend specific remedial and punitive actions.

Timeline: The committee must submit its detailed findings report within eight weeks.

---

Protection for the Petitioner

In a significant move, the NGT addressed the petitioner’s claims of harassment. The tribunal has directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Dehradun, to provide appropriate security cover to Pradeep Sharma upon his request, ensuring his safety as the legal proceedings move forward.

Next Steps

The tribunal has issued formal notices to all respondents in the case. The next hearing is scheduled for July 17, 2026, by which time the joint committee’s report will be on record to guide further judicial action.

---

Sources

• Press Trust of India (PTI): “NGT forms panel to look into tree felling, encroachment and illegal mining in Dehradun” (March 29, 2026).
• The Week: “NGT crackdown: Unraveling eco-violations in Dehradun” (March 29, 2026).
• National Herald: “Dehradun: NGT forms panel to probe tree felling, encroachment, illegal mining” (March 29, 2026).
• Outlook Business: “NGT Forms Panel to Look into Tree Felling, Encroachment and Illegal Mining in Dehradun” (March 29, 2026).

NEW DELHI (Saturday, March 28, 2026) — The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken serious cognisance of alleged large-scale environmental violations in the Kothal Gate area of Dehradun. The tribunal has ordered the formation of a high-level joint committee to investigate claims of illegal tree felling, forest land encroachment, and unauthorised mining linked to a private developer.

---

The Allegations: Decades of Non-Compliance

The case was initiated by an application from Pradeep Sharma, who alleged that Jain Developers had been operating in blatant violation of environmental laws.

• Persistent Violations: The applicant claimed that despite a “Stop Work” notice issued by authorities as far back as 2014, illegal activities have continued unabated.
• Ecological Damage: Allegations include the felling of thousands of trees, encroachment on sensitive forest tracts, and illegal extraction of minerals in the Mussoorie-Dehradun hills.
• Petitioner Harassment: The tribunal noted that the applicant had reported harassment. Consequently, the NGT directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Dehradun, to provide security cover to Sharma upon request.

[Image: Map of Dehradun highlighting the Kothal Gate area and its proximity to protected forest zones]

The Joint Committee’s Mandate

A bench led by Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava underscored that the case raises “substantial questions” regarding environmental governance.

Committee Members	Key Responsibilities
MoEF&CC Representative	Ensure compliance with Central environmental and forest laws.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Uttarakhand	Verify forest land boundaries and count felled trees.
District Magistrate (DM), Dehradun	Assess local land records and unauthorised mining activities.

Deadlines:

1. Site Inspection: The committee must conduct a thorough physical verification of the Kothal Gate site.
2. Report Submission: A comprehensive findings report must be submitted within eight weeks.
3. Next Hearing: The tribunal has scheduled the next hearing for July 17, 2026.

---

Broader Context: Uttarakhand’s Ecological Strain

This intervention follows a series of NGT orders aimed at curbing unregulated development in Uttarakhand’s fragile ecosystem.

• Kainchi Dham: In January 2026, the NGT issued similar directives regarding waste management and illegal constructions near the famous shrine in Nainital.
• Mussoorie Carrying Capacity: The tribunal has been closely monitoring the “carrying capacity” of hill stations like Mussoorie and Dehradun to prevent Joshimath-like land subsidence incidents.

Sources

• Press Trust of India (PTI): “NGT forms panel to look into tree felling, encroachment, illegal mining in Dehradun” (March 28, 2026).
• The Week: “NGT orders probe into Dehradun eco-violations; panel to report in 8 weeks” (March 29, 2026).
• National Herald: “Dehradun: NGT forms panel to probe tree felling, encroachment, illegal mining” (March 29, 2026).
• Devdiscourse: “NGT Crackdown: Unraveling Eco-Violations in Dehradun” (March 29, 2026).

LATEHAR, JHARKHAND (Saturday, March 28, 2026) — A special court in Jharkhand’s Latehar district has sentenced six individuals to life imprisonment for the gang rape of a minor. The verdict, delivered by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Second) cum Special Judge (POCSO), Sanjay Kumar Dubey, also includes a heavy financial penalty on the convicts, marking a significant outcome in the region’s fight against sexual violence.

---

The Convicts

The court found the following six men guilty of the crime:

1. Kariman Ganjhu (38)
2. Mukesh Ganjhu (27)
3. Suresh Ganjhu (29)
4. Pintu Ganjhu (25)
5. Birendra Ganjhu (23)
6. Rohit Oraon (25)

Judicial Ruling and Penalties

The court convicted the group under Section 376D of the IPC (punishment for gang rape) and relevant sections of the POCSO Act.

Penalty Component	Details
Primary Sentence	Life Imprisonment for all six convicts.
Financial Fine	₹10 Lakh fine imposed on each convict.
Total Fine	₹60 Lakh (to be paid by the group).
Default Clause	Failure to pay the fine will result in an additional 2 years of imprisonment.

---

Case Context: POCSO and IPC 376D

The sentencing follows the strict guidelines established under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the stringent amendments to the Indian Penal Code (now transitioning to BNS) regarding gang rape.

• Section 376D: Mandates that where a woman (or minor) is raped by one or more persons constituting a group, each person is deemed to have committed the offense and is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to life.
• Special Courts: The Latehar Special POCSO court’s speedy disposal and rigorous sentencing reflect the judiciary’s mandate to handle crimes against children with high priority.

Sources

• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Jharkhand: 6 sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape of minor in Latehar” (March 28, 2026).
• The Pioneer: “Latehar Court awards life term to six in minor gang-rape case” (March 29, 2026).
• Prabhat Khabar: “लातेहार: नाबालिग से सामूहिक दुष्कर्म के 6 दोषियों को उम्रकैद” (March 28, 2026).
• Official Court Order: State of Jharkhand v. Kariman Ganjhu & Ors. (Special POCSO Case, Latehar, 2026).

NEW DELHI (Friday, March 27, 2026) — A Special NIA Court has extended the custodial interrogation of seven foreign nationals—including six Ukrainian citizens and one U.S. national—by 10 days. The accused are allegedly involved in a high-stakes breach of India’s national security, a case the agency describes as having “global ramifications” and “extreme sensitivity.”

---

Procedural Shift: Court Moves to NIA Headquarters

In a rare move highlighting the gravity of the case, Special Judge Prashant Sharma allowed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to conduct judicial proceedings within the agency’s heavily fortified headquarters in New Delhi rather than a public courtroom.

• Security Rationale: The judge noted that the sensitivity of the investigation and the potential for international interference necessitated a high-security environment for the proceedings.
• The Accused: The group consists of six Ukrainians and one citizen of the United States.
• Production Deadline: Following the 10-day extension, the accused are scheduled to be produced before the court again on April 6, 2026.

The Allegations: Breach of National Security

While specific details remain classified under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), NIA sources have hinted at several core areas of the probe:

Investigation Focal Point	Details
Data Exfiltration	Alleged unauthorized access to sensitive Indian defense or strategic databases.
Espionage Links	Investigation into whether the individuals were operating on behalf of a third-party intelligence agency.
Global Ramifications	The NIA is reportedly coordinating with international agencies to trace the flow of encrypted communications used by the group.
Logistical Support	Identifying local Indian handlers who may have facilitated the foreigners’ entry or access to secure zones.

Judicial Oversight and Custody

The NIA argued that further custody was essential to confront the accused with newly recovered digital evidence and “voluminous” encrypted data retrieved from their personal devices.

• Judicial Custody vs. NIA Custody: The extension allows investigators to keep the suspects in their direct interrogation facility rather than shifting them to a standard jail (judicial custody), where interrogation is restricted.
• Legal Representation: The foreign nationals are being provided with legal aid, and respective embassies have reportedly been notified as per international diplomatic protocols.

---

Sources

• The Times of India: “National security breach: NIA custody of 7 foreign nationals extended by 10 days” (March 27, 2026).
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Delhi court allows NIA headquarters as venue for security breach case proceedings” (March 27, 2026).
• Hindustan Times: “Six Ukrainians and one US national in NIA net over security breach; custody extended” (March 27, 2026).
• Official NIA Briefing: Update on Case RC-04/2026/NIA/DLI (March 27, 2026)

SULTANPUR, UP (Friday, March 27, 2026) — A local court in Sultanpur has remanded Chandrama Devi, the former chairperson of the Amethi Nagar Panchayat, to judicial custody in connection with a high-profile property fraud case. The court of in-charge District Judge Rakesh Pandey rejected her interim bail plea on Thursday and has scheduled the hearing for her regular bail application on March 30, 2026.

---

The Case: Fraudulent Property Transfer

The legal action stems from a complaint filed by Ghanshyam Soni, a local trade leader in Amethi.

• The Allegation: Soni alleged that during her tenure as chairperson, Chandrama Devi fraudulently facilitated the transfer of his house to other individuals—identified as Lallu Prasad Soni, Lalji Soni, Pujari Lal Soni, and Sangam Lal Soni.
• The Mechanism: The complainant claimed that a forged certificate was issued to enable the illegal transfer of the property records.
• The Defense: Her counsel, Arvind Singh Raja, argued that such certificates are officially issued by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat, not the chairperson, asserting that Chandrama Devi has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry.

Judicial Proceedings and Health Status

Following directions from the High Court to surrender within a week, Chandrama Devi appeared before the court of ACJM Bhavya Srivastava on Thursday.

Event	Detail
Surrender	Thursday, March 26, 2026, at ACJM Court.
Bail Rejection	ACJM court and later District Judge court rejected interim bail.
Hospitalization	Admitted to the Sultanpur District Hospital late Thursday night due to reported illness.
Next Hearing	March 30, 2026, for regular bail arguments.

[Image: Timeline of the legal process from “Complaint Filed” to “Surrender” and “Judicial Custody”]

Context: Political Undercurrents

Chandrama Devi is a prominent figure in local politics, being the wife of Rajesh Agrahari (popularly known as Rajesh Masala), the current District Panchayat President of Amethi. The defense has repeatedly highlighted this connection to claim the case is politically motivated.

Earlier in 2026, the court had issued a non-bailable warrant and a notice for property attachment (Kurki) against her after she missed several court appearances, leading to her eventual surrender this week.

---

Sources

• Hindustan Times: “Ex-chairperson of Amethi Nagar Panchayat sent to jail in fraud case” (March 27, 2026).
• Navbharat Times: “धोखाधड़ी के मामले में अमेठी की पूर्व नगर पंचायत अध्यक्ष गईं जेल” (March 26, 2026).
• Dainik Jagran: “Sultanpur News: Amethi’s former Nagar Panchayat President sent to jail” (March 26, 2026).

NEW DELHI (Friday, March 27, 2026) — A Special NIA Court in Delhi has granted the National Investigation Agency (NIA) an additional 45 days to complete its investigation into the low-intensity blast that occurred near the Red Fort on November 10, 2025. Special Judge Prashant Sharma allowed the extension after the agency argued that the “trans-border” nature of the conspiracy required more time to map out financial and logistical links.

---

The Investigation: 11 Arrests and Counting

Since taking over the case from the Delhi Police Special Cell in late 2025, the NIA has conducted raids across five states, leading to the apprehension of 11 individuals.

• The Incident: On November 10, 2025, a small Improvised Explosive Device (IED) was detonated near the Red Fort’s Lahori Gate. While there were no fatalities, the location’s high symbolic value triggered a massive anti-terror response.
• The “Khorasan” Link: NIA sources suggest the accused are part of a self-radicalized module influenced by the ISKP (Islamic State – Khorasan Province).
• The Extension: Under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the agency can seek an extension of the investigation period from 90 days up to 180 days if it can prove the complexity of the conspiracy.

Current Status of the Accused

In addition to granting more time for the probe, the court also extended the judicial custody of the prime suspects currently lodged in Tihar Jail.

Case Detail	Information
Total Arrests	11
Key Charges	UAPA, 1967 and Explosive Substances Act
New Deadline	Mid-May 2026 (approx. 45-day extension)
Recovery	Digital footprints, encrypted chat logs, and chemical residues from a “safe house” in Western UP.

---

Security Context: The “Heritage Circuit” Alert

The Red Fort blast, combined with recent threats, has led the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to implement a new “Triple-Tier” security protocol for Delhi’s heritage sites.

• Facial Recognition: Integration of AI-based facial recognition at all entry points of the Red Fort.
• Drone Surveillance: 24/7 aerial monitoring of the fort’s perimeter and the surrounding Chandni Chowk area.
• Underground Sensors: Installation of seismic sensors to detect tunneling or underground suspicious activity.

Sources

• The Times of India: “Red Fort blast: Court grants NIA 45 more days to complete investigation” (March 27, 2026).
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Red Fort blast: NIA granted 45 more days by court to conclude probe” (March 27, 2026).

PRAYAGRAJ (Thursday, March 26, 2026) — The Allahabad High Court has initiated a stern inquiry into the conduct of the Bareilly Police after discovering a critical discrepancy in a criminal case. The court noted with “serious concern” that while a victim’s written complaint explicitly detailed an act of rape, the resulting First Information Report (FIR) omitted all relevant legal sections related to sexual assault.

---

The Judicial Intervention

Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari, presiding over the matter, characterized the omission as a grave administrative failure that undermines the survivor’s right to justice.

• The Discrepancy: The petitioner approached the court alleging that despite her detailed statement regarding rape, the police only registered a case under minor sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (formerly IPC), effectively “diluting” the severity of the crime.
• Top Officials Summoned: The High Court has demanded an explanation from the highest levels of the state administration:
  1. Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh
  2. Principal Secretary (Home), UP Government
  3. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Bareilly

Directives for Accountability

The court has mandated a transparent “corrective” process to ensure such lapses do not recur in other districts:

Directive	Requirement
Explanation Report	Officials must explain why rape sections were not invoked despite the written complaint.
Correction of FIR	Immediate review and addition of relevant sections (e.g., Section 64 of BNS) based on the victim’s statement.
State-Wide Advisory	The DGP is expected to issue a circular ensuring that FIRs accurately reflect the contents of the Tehrir (written complaint).
Compliance Deadline	A detailed report must be filed before the court by the next date of hearing.

[Image: Legal diagram showing the transition from “Written Complaint” to “FIR” and the mandatory inclusion of all alleged offenses]

---

Legal Context: Mandatory Registration of FIR

This ruling reinforces the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., which holds that:

• Registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC (now Section 173 of BNSS) if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offense.
• Police officers do not have the discretion to “filter” or “ignore” specific allegations mentioned in the victim’s primary complaint.

Sources

• Live Law: “Allahabad High Court Seeks Explanation From UP DGP Over Omission Of Rape Sections In FIR” (March 26, 2026).
• Bar and Bench: “Allahabad HC pulls up Bareilly Police for not reflecting rape allegations in FIR; summons top officials” (March 26, 2026).
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Noting rape allegation in complaint not reflected in FIR, Allahabad HC asks top officials to explain” (March 26, 2026).
• Official Court Order: [Victim Name Redacted] v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court, March 2026).