'Manifestly Illegal': Allahabad HC Raps Ballia SP For Treating Court's Order As Written First Information Itself, Seeks Explanation

The Court expressed surprise that its order dated May 29, 2025, had been directly entered as the FIR (chik FIR), instead of following the settled legal procedure whereby either the complainant or a designated officer reduces the information into writing and submits it to the police for formal registration.

"This act on the part of the Superintendent of Police is prima facie contumacious, apart from being manifestly illegal", the Court noted as it sought explanation of the IPS Officer concerned.

The Court also directed him to show cause why the written FIR as entered in the check form should not be ordered to be 'expunged' and substituted by a fresh FIR to be lodged on a written information given by the petitioner or a Police Officer.

The Court was essentially dealing with a 2016 case concerning the allegedly manipulated appointment of the petitioner, one Devendra Kumar Singh, against a vacancy said to have arisen upon the retirement of one Ram Preet Singh, a Class IV employee at an Intermediate College in Ballia.

The dispute revolves around the actual date of birth and retirement of the said employee (Ram Preet Singh).

While the petitioner (DK Singh) claimed that Ram Preet Singh, born on July 1, 1931, retired on June 30, 1991, a contradictory record [RP Singh's service book] suggested he was actually born on July 1, 1940 and retired on June 30, 2000. This effectively nullified the claim that the petitioner was appointed against his vacancy.

Now, on May 5, 2025, a direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Ballia and the Principal of the said College to produce the original service book of Ram Preet Singh. On May 26, 2025, a 'duplicate' service book was produced instead.

The Court found that no legitimate explanation was forthcoming as to under which circumstances In fact, the Court noted, there was no official order directing the construction of a duplicate service book by any Authority recorded in the duplicate service book

Thus, terming the book to be a 'surreptitious document', the single judge remarked thus:

"This is an utterly unsatisfactory state of affairs where ex facie a duplicate service book, absolutely unreliable to its face, has been shown to us through a very doubtful channel of transmission".

Against this backdrop, on May 29, observing that the original service book appeared to have been 'deliberately stolen', the High Court ordered the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, to register an FIR in the matter to investigate the loss of the original service book and the suspicious construction of a duplicate.

The Court also directed the Police to probe the roles of officials from the Institution and the Education Department.

Now, on July 3, in compliance with the Court's order, SP Ballia submitted a personal affidavit on July 3 stating that an FIR had been registered.

However, on scrutiny, the Court found that instead of proceeding in accordance with law, the SP had treated the Court's May 29 order itself as the written first information. In other words, the exact order of the Court had been directly used as the Chik FIR, showing a private complainant as the informant.

Expressing its 'surprise' over the fact, the High Court termed this act on the part of the Superintendent of Police as 'prima facie contumacious' as well as 'manifestly illegal'.

Therefore, the Court sought an explanation of the SP concerned by observing thus:

"Let Omvir Singh, Superintendent of Police, Ballia explain his position regarding the contumacious action in taking the order of this Court as the written first information report and entering it in the check form, showing in the check form a private complainant as the informant".

Regarding the process of registration on an FIR on Court order, the Court noted that the SP ought to know by now that even if this Court directs the registration of an FIR, it is an Officer of the Court who carries out the directions and gives written information to the Police.

Stressing that "the orders of the court cannot be taken as a written first information", the bench directed the SP concerned to file his affidavit on this issue within a week.

The matter will now come up for a hearing on Monday, July 14.