Seeking Justice: The Struggle for a Fair Investigation in the Case of Mahima Maurya

The administrative and legal process can often feel like a labyrinth for those seeking justice. The case of Mahima Maurya (Grievance No: GOVUP/E/2024/0091581) highlights a distressing gap between a citizen’s physical suffering and the official police record.

This post breaks down the core issues of a grievance currently pending with the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh, involving allegations of physical assault, medical evidence discrepancies, and administrative negligence.

---

1. The Core Incident and Medical Discrepancy

The complainant, Mahima Maurya, reports being the victim of a violent assault that resulted in significant injuries, including a head wound requiring three stitches and a fractured thumb necessitating a plaster cast.

• The Conflict: While the complainant has provided medical records and X-ray plates from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital (Prayagraj) confirming these injuries, a counter-report dated 14.09.2024 claims that no fractures were found.
• The Argument: The complainant asserts that “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of administration. She argues that the primary health center (CHC Vindhyachal) did not perform the necessary X-rays to detect internal bone injuries, which were later confirmed by a higher-ranked government facility.

2. Allegations of Procedural Irregularities

A major point of contention involves the documentation handled by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Vindhyachal.

• Inconsistent Record Keeping: Documents addressed to the Medical Officer show “Nil” written in the case number and section columns, which were later manually altered to reflect NCR No. 104 under Sections 115(2) and 352 of the BNS.
• Demand for Accountability: The complainant is demanding a formal explanation as to why the case was initially recorded as “Nil,” suggesting a lack of transparency in the early stages of the investigation.

3. The Failure to Register an FIR

Despite the severity of the injuries—specifically a bone fracture and a head injury—the police have allegedly failed to register a First Information Report (FIR).

Under Indian law, when a cognizable offense is disclosed, the registration of an FIR is mandatory. The complainant alleges that the police are instead:

• Submitting “arbitrary and inconsistent” reports.
• Avoiding the facts presented in the medical certificates.
• Failing to disclose whether an FIR has been registered despite repeated inquiries.

4. Allegations of Harassment and Intimidation

Beyond the legal hurdles, the grievance describes a pattern of intimidation. Maurya alleges that police personnel have made “irritating calls” to pressure her into withdrawing her representations to senior officers. This highlights a critical issue regarding the safety and protection of victims from the very agencies meant to protect them.

---

Current Status of the Grievance

• Registration Number: GOVUP/E/2024/0091581
• Received Date: 14/12/2024
• Concerned Officer: Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)
• Location: Chief Minister Secretariat, Lucknow

The grievance is currently under review by the Uttar Pradesh state authorities. The outcome of this case will be a significant indicator of how the state balances police reports against independent medical evidence from its own high-ranking government hospitals.

This additional information highlights serious procedural lapses by the local police. If a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) was filed without the complainant’s signature while she was physically present, it raises significant questions about the authenticity and legality of the document.

Here is an updated breakdown of the situation, focusing on these new legal and procedural concerns.

---

Procedural Violations and Legal Discrepancies: The Case of Mahima Maurya

The latest details in the grievance of Mahima Maurya suggest a systemic failure to follow established legal protocols under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) / Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

1. The Missing Signature on the NCR

According to the complainant, the police recorded an NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) but failed to obtain Mahima Maurya’s signature, despite her being physically present at the station and undergoing a medical examination.

• Legal Requirement: By law, the substance of information provided by a complainant must be signed by the person giving it. A missing signature on a police document concerning a victim who is present suggests that the information recorded may not accurately reflect her statement.
• The Implication: This supports the complainant’s claim that the reports submitted by the police are “arbitrary and inconsistent.

2. Strategic Detention of the Witness/Husband

A critical element of this case is the detention of Pramod Kumar Kushwaha (the complainant’s husband) under Section 151 of the CrPC (preventive arrest).

• Potential Misuse of Power: Section 151 is intended to prevent the commission of cognizable offenses. However, if the husband was detained while the wife was being denied a proper FIR for her injuries, it suggests a tactic to isolate the victim and prevent her from having a witness or support system during the medical and legal filing process.
• The Contrast: While the victim’s husband was detained for “prevention,” the actual offenders who caused a bone fracture and head injuries allegedly remain without an FIR registered against them.

3. Medical Evidence vs. Police Narrative

The police report claims “no fracture,” yet the complainant has provided X-ray evidence from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital (a Top-5 ranked government facility in Prayagraj) confirming a thumb fracture.

Document Source	Finding	Police Action
CHC Vindhyachal	No Fracture Mentioned	Used to justify a minor NCR
T.B. Sapru Hospital	Bone Fracture & 3 Stitches	Allegedly ignored by investigating officers

4. Summary of Grievances Against the Police

The core issue has now shifted from a simple assault case to a case of administrative and police misconduct, involving:

• Non-registration of FIR for a cognizable offense (Grevious Hurt).
• Falsification of records (Recording an NCR without the victim’s signature).
• Intimidation (Detaining the husband under Section 151 and making harassing phone calls).
• Suppression of Evidence (Ignoring the X-ray reports from a higher-tier government hospital).

---

Recommended Next Steps for the Complainant

1. Affidavit of Presence: Mahima Maurya should prepare a sworn affidavit stating she was at the station on the date of the NCR and that the police intentionally bypassed her signature.
2. Section 154(3) Petition: Since the local police have failed to register an FIR, a formal application should be sent to the Superintendent of Police (SP) Prayagraj/Mirzapur via registered post.
3. Medical Board Request: Request the Joint Secretary (Shri Arvind Mohan) to form a medical board to reconcile the conflicting reports between CHC Vindhyachal and T.B. Sapru Hospital.

This situation goes beyond a simple error; it is a calculated legal manipulation designed to deny you justice. By misidentifying the person produced in court, the police have committed a “fraud on the court” to hide the truth of your physical assault.

Here is how this “willful blunder” fundamentally undermines the law and what it means for your case.

---

1. Falsification of Public Records

The General Diary (GD) is a legal document used to track the movement of persons in police custody.

• The Blunder: Recording Mithilesh Maurya in the GD while physically producing Pramod Kumar Kushwaha is a criminal act of forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
• The Motive: This creates a “legal ghost.” If you try to complain that Pramod was illegally detained, the police can point to the paper record and say, “According to the GD, it was Mithilesh who was in court.”

2. Violation of Judicial Oversight

The very purpose of producing a person before a Magistrate is for the Judge to verify their physical condition and the legality of their arrest.

• The Blunder: By putting the wrong name on the paperwork, the police intentionally misled the Magistrate. This prevented the Judge from correctly identifying Pramod Kumar Kushwaha as the husband of the victim (you), thereby hiding the context of the physical assault.
• The Motive: It ensures the Magistrate treats the case as a minor “peace-breaking” issue rather than a serious criminal assault involving a bone fracture.

3. Procedural “Mistakes of Law”

The police have willfully ignored mandatory legal procedures to protect the offenders:

• Ignoring Cognizable Offense: A bone fracture (as seen in your T.B. Sapru Hospital report) is a cognizable offense (Grievous Hurt). The law requires a mandatory FIR, not a minor NCR or preventive “challan.
• Illegal Preventive Action: Section 170 BNSS (Preventive Arrest) cannot be used as a substitute for investigating a violent crime that has already occurred.

---

Comparison of Police Narrative vs. Legal Reality

Feature	Police Narrative (GD 057)	Legal Reality (Mahima’s Case)
Person Produced	Mithilesh Maurya	Pramod Kumar Kushwaha
Injury Status	“Free from fresh injuries”	Head stitches & Thumb fracture
Case Type	Mutual Dispute (Non-Cognizable)	Violent Assault (Cognizable)

---

How to Use This “Blunder” in Your Grievance

You must inform Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) that this is not an accident but a conspiracy to protect the accused. Use these points:

1. Demand Forensic Audit of Signatures: Request the Court to check the signature on the production warrant. If Pramod signed it but the header says Mithilesh, it is proof of forgery.
2. Challenge the GD’s Credibility: Since the GD has a “willful mistake” regarding the identity of the person, the statement in the GD claiming “no injuries were found” must also be dismissed as a lie.
3. Request Action Under Section 218 BNS: This section deals with public servants framing incorrect records to save a person from punishment.

This email is a powerful and legally sound representation of your situation. By sending it to the UPHRC, NHRC, and the senior-most police officials in Uttar Pradesh, you have officially put the administration on notice regarding the “willful blunder” and the identity substitution in the court proceedings.

Here is an analysis of what you have achieved with this communication and what to expect next:

1. Legal Weight of Your Email

• Direct Allegation of Fraud: By explicitly naming Pramod Kumar Kushwaha as the person actually produced in court versus Mithilesh Maurya named in GD No. 057, you have identified a criminal act of record falsification.
• Challenging the Medical Lie: You have successfully countered the police claim of “no injuries” by citing the specialized findings of T.B. Sapru Hospital, which is a high-ranking government facility.
• Establishing Non-Compliance: You have highlighted that the SP Mirzapur failed to ensure the investigation was done “in accordance with law” as directed on 21/10/2024.

2. What Happens Next?

• UPHRC Review: The Commission will likely look at Linked Diary No: 2149/IN/2025. Since your email alleges a “fraud on the court,” they may summon the Magistrate’s Production Register to verify the signatures.
• Pressure on SP Mirzapur: Because the DGP and DIG are copied, the SP’s office will be forced to respond to the specific allegation of why the names in the GD do not match the person physically produced in court.
• Correction of Records: If the forgery is proven, the police officers responsible can face criminal charges under the BNS for framing incorrect records to save the accused.

3. Immediate Recommended Step

Since today is December 27, 2025, and you have just sent this email:

• Keep the PDF safe: Ensure you have the original UPHRCdoc.pdf and a copy of the Sent Email with the timestamp. These are now your primary pieces of evidence for “due diligence.”
• Check the UP Jansunwai Portal: Since Shri Arvind Mohan was copied, check your online status for GOVUP/E/2024/0091581 in a few days. The police are often required to upload a rebuttal or “compliance report” there.

To ensure your representation is tracked and followed up on through official channels, here are the essential web links you will need to monitor your case and file further evidence if required.

1. Human Rights Commissions (Tracking & Filing)

• UPHRC Case Status (HRCNet):https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/Common/CaseStatus.aspx
  • Use this to track File No: 14054/24/55/2024. Enter your Diary No (4672/IN/2024 or 2149/IN/2025) to see if the Commission has updated the status following your email.
• National Human Rights Commission (Complaint Filing):https://hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/Complaint/OnlineComplaint.aspx
  • If you need to upload additional scanned PDFs of the court records or medical reports directly to the national database.

2. Uttar Pradesh Government Portals

• IGRS Jansunwai (Grievance Status):https://jansunwai.up.nic.in/
  • Enter your registration number GOVUP/E/2024/0091581 here to check for the latest response from the Chief Minister’s Secretariat or the Joint Secretary.
• UP Police Official Website:https://uppolice.gov.in/
  • You can use this portal to look up the “Know Your Police Station” section or find updated contact details for senior officers in the Mirzapur/Prayagraj range.

3. Legal & Judicial Links

• e-Courts Services (Magistrate Court Tracking):https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v6/
  • Since Pramod Kumar Kushwaha was produced before a Magistrate, you can search by “Party Name” or “FIR/NCR Number” (NCR No. 104/24) to see the official court record of who appeared in the dock.
• Digital Sansad (To read BNSS/BNS Acts):https://sansad.in/
  • Useful if you need to cite the specific wording of Section 170 (Preventive Arrest) or Section 175(3) (Magistrate’s power to order FIR) under the new criminal laws.

---

Important Procedural Step

When you visit the Jansunwai portal, look for the “Upload Reminder/Suggestion” (अनुस्मारक भेजें) option. You can upload the “Sent” screenshot of your recent email there to ensure Shri Arvind Mohan receives it through the state’s internal tracking system as well.

Would you like me to guide you on how to check the e-Courts record specifically for Mirzapur district courts?