FIRs In Sensitive Offence Cases Exempted From Mandatory Online Uploading: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the 2016 Supreme Court judgement in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India and Another, 2016 exempts mandatory uploading of FIRs in sensitive offences cases and the same can be sought from Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking inter-alia direction to authorities to provide the copy of the F.I.R., if any, to the Petitioner with immediate effects. 

The division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani held, "A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Youth Bar Association of India (supra) would indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly carved out a distinction between general F.I.R.s and the F.I.R.s where the offence is sensitive in nature like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under the POCSO Act and such other offences, which are not to be uploaded on the website of the State."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Shashank Singh while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.

The incident concerning the present case said to have occurred on October 31, 2025 at 11:50 P.M. when unknown persons riding in a white car had fired in the premises of a residential school. Upon a complaint being given by the Manager of the said school, the Police traced out the said car with the help of the CCTV footage from which it emerged that there was a white car which was involved in the incident. Thereafter, with the help of the CCTV footage, the Police reached the premises where three white coloured cars were found which were got locked by the Police. The complainant, on account of the said incident, was in fear and did not wish to lodge an F.I.R.

After the Complainant was assured of being given security, the F.I.R. was lodged on November 03, 2025, under Section 109(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 in which the investigation is being carried out against unknown persons.

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that once the Police personnel had barged inside the house of the Petitioner consequently, his life is under threat and, hence, has prayed to open the locks of the car, to command the Police to provide the copy of the F.I.R. and not to harass the petitioner and her family without following the due process of law.

The Counsel cited Supreme Court's ruling in Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India and Another 2016 wherein it was held that the copies of the F.I.R.s should be uploaded on the police website.

The Court clarified the exception carved in the ruling and further stated, "The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further provided in para 11.8 of the said judgment that in case a copy of the F.I.R. is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person aggrieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of the Police or any persons holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police, he shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate to the aggrieved person."

It thus asked the Petitioner to take the due course while emphasising that the competent authority while considering the said application would also consider as to whether the petitioner would fall within the ambit of being an "aggrieved person" in terms of the aforesaid judgment and in case, after considering the aforesaid, the petitioner is found entitled for being given the copy of the F.I.R., an order in this regard would be passed.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Abhihita Misra v. State Of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:70756-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Shashank Singh, Advocate Amit Jaiswal

Respondent- Government Advocate

Click here to read/ download Order