Lucknow Court Rejects Ex-IPS Officer's Plea For FIR Against CM Yogi Adityanath Over Alleged False Election Affidavits
Sparsh Upadhyay
15 Sept 2025 1:26 PM IST
A Court in Uttar Pradesh's Lucknow District last week rejected a plea moved by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur seeking registration of an FIR against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath for allegedly filing false election affidavits before the Election Commission.
Briefly, Thakur's application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS sought the Court's directions to the police to register an FIR against CM Adityanath under Sections 176, 177, 181 and 199 IPC for "deliberate false statement" made in his affidavits submitted to the Election Commission in 2009, 2014, and 2017 regarding pending criminal cases against him.
Additionally, Thakur sought to invoke Section 125A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, in the FIR, which provides a Penalty for filing a false affidavit.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma, however, rejected Thakur's plea, noting that the provisions/allegations cannot be the subject of an FIR in view of the bar contained under Section 195 CrPC (now 215 BNSS 2023)
"According to Section 195 CrPC, the sections indicated by the applicant fall under the purview of Sections 176, 177, 181 and 199 IPC, under which cognizance of any crime can be taken only on a written complaint by the concerned court/officer/public servant. Thus, the above legal provision prohibits filing of an FIR at the concerned police station regarding the alleged crime by the applicant", the Court's order reads.
Regarding Section 125A RPA, the Court referred to the March 2025 decision of the Karnataka High Court in Manjula S. @ Manjula Limbawali vs. Sri Nagesh T. @Nallur Hali Nagesh, wherein it was held that offences under Section 125A of the RP Act and Sections 176, 177 IPC are non-cognizable, and only the Election Commission has the authority to lodge a complaint regarding these offences.
Against this backdrop, the court concluded that Thakur's case, being related to Section 195 CrPC/215 BNSS, wouldn't warrant the Court directing the filing of the FIR against UP CM Adityanath.
It may be noted that in his plea, Thakur had alleged that CM Adityanath had concealed the pendency of certain cases, including those arising out of FIRs registered at Gorakhpur Cantt. (2008), Itwa (2004, 2005) and Mohana (2004), while inconsistently disclosing or omitting other cases.
He alleged that CM Adityanath had given incorrect information in various affidavits submitted before the Election Commission of India under Form 26, by not showing the correct details of the criminal cases registered against him.
He further argued that such concealment prima facie attracted serious offences under Sections 176, 177, 181, and 199 of the IPC, read with Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.