An irresponsible police investigation in Uttar Pradesh has left Mahima Maurya without an FIR, despite medical proof of a fractured thumb and head injury. Officers at Vindhyachal allegedly altered case records, filed a Non-Cognizable Report without her signature, and detained her husband under a preventive-arrest provision instead of pursuing the actual assault. A local health center’s report claiming no fracture directly contradicts X-ray evidence from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, a higher-ranked government facility. The grievance, now pending with the Chief Minister’s Secretariat (GOVUP/E/2024/0091581), also alleges intimidation through repeated calls pressuring her to withdraw her complaint. This post examines the medical discrepancies, procedural violations, and record falsification at the heart of the case, and outlines the legal steps Maurya is taking through the UPHRC, NHRC, and Uttar Pradesh’s official grievance portals to demand accountability.

Seeking Justice: An Irresponsible Police Investigation in Uttar Pradesh

Overall, the administrative and legal process often feels like a labyrinth. People seeking justice know this well. In particular, the case of Mahima Maurya (Grievance No: GOVUP/E/2024/0091581) stands as a clear example of an irresponsible police investigation in Uttar Pradesh. It reveals a distressing gap between a citizen’s physical suffering and the official police record.

Therefore, this post breaks down the core issues of a grievance. It is currently pending with the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh. Specifically, it examines allegations of physical assault, medical evidence discrepancies, and administrative negligence. Together, these issues form a wider pattern of irresponsible policing in the state.

---

1. The Core Incident: Medical Discrepancy Behind the Irresponsible Police Investigation

First, the complainant, Mahima Maurya, reports that she suffered a violent assault. As a result, the attack left her with a head wound requiring three stitches. It also left her with a fractured thumb that needed a plaster cast.

• The Conflict: The complainant has provided medical records and X-ray plates from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital (Prayagraj). These confirm her injuries. Yet a counter-report dated 14.09.2024 claims doctors found no fractures. This is an early sign of the irresponsible police investigation in Uttar Pradesh that would follow.
• The Argument: The complainant asserts that “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of administration. Specifically, she argues that CHC Vindhyachal, the primary health center, did not perform the necessary X-rays. As a result, doctors failed to detect internal bone injuries. Later, however, a higher-ranked government facility confirmed those injuries.

2. Procedural Irregularities: Signs of Careless Police Work in UP

Meanwhile, a major point of contention involves documentation. Specifically, it concerns paperwork handled by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Vindhyachal.

• Inconsistent Record Keeping: Initially, documents addressed to the Medical Officer showed “Nil” in the case number and section columns. Later, though, someone manually altered these entries. The revised entries now reflect NCR No. 104 under Sections 115(2) and 352 of the BNS.
• Demand for Accountability: Consequently, the complainant is demanding a formal explanation. She wants to know why officials initially recorded the case as “Nil.” In her view, this points to a lack of transparency in the early stages of the investigation.

3. Failure to Register an FIR: A Core Feature of Police Negligence in Uttar Pradesh

Despite the severity of the injuries, the police have allegedly failed to register a First Information Report (FIR). This includes a bone fracture and a head injury. Arguably, this single failure is the clearest evidence of an irresponsible police investigation in Uttar Pradesh.

Under Indian law, registering an FIR is mandatory. This applies whenever a cognizable offense comes to light. Yet, according to the complainant, the police are instead:

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

4. Harassment and Intimidation: Another Face of Irresponsible Policing in UP

Beyond the legal hurdles, moreover, the grievance describes a pattern of intimidation. Specifically, Maurya alleges that police personnel made “irritating calls.” These calls, she says, aimed to pressure her into withdrawing her representations to senior officers. Consequently, this pattern raises a critical issue: how do victims stay safe from the very agencies meant to protect them?

---

Current Status of the Grievance (Irresponsible Police Investigation)

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

Currently, Uttar Pradesh state authorities are reviewing the grievance. Ultimately, the outcome will show how the state treats police reports. It will reveal whether such reports outweigh independent medical evidence from its own high-ranking government hospitals.

In addition, further information has since surfaced. It highlights serious procedural lapses by the local police. Specifically, officers reportedly filed a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) without the complainant’s signature. This happened even though she was physically present. As a result, this raises significant questions about the document’s authenticity and legality.

Below, then, is an updated breakdown of the situation. It focuses on these new legal and procedural concerns.

---

Procedural Violations and Legal Discrepancies: More Signs of an Irresponsible Police Investigation in Uttar Pradesh

Overall, the latest details in Mahima Maurya’s grievance suggest a systemic failure. Specifically, officials failed to follow established legal protocols under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) / Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

1. The Missing Signature on the NCR: A Flawed Police Investigation in Action

According to the complainant, police recorded an NCR (Non-Cognizable Report). However, they failed to obtain her signature. This happened even though she was physically present at the station and underwent a medical examination. (Irresponsible Police Investigation)

• Legal Requirement: By law, first of all, the person giving information to police must sign the record of that information. Because the signature is missing, in turn, doubt arises. It is unclear whether the document reflects her actual statement.
• The Implication: Therefore, this detail supports the complainant’s claim. She says the reports police submitted are “arbitrary and inconsistent.”

2. Strategic Detention of the Witness: Police Overreach in Uttar Pradesh

Additionally, a critical element of this case is the detention of Pramod Kumar Kushwaha. He is the complainant’s husband. Police detained him under Section 151 of the CrPC (preventive arrest). (Irresponsible Police Investigation)

• Potential Misuse of Power: Section 151 is intended to prevent cognizable offenses. Yet police detained the husband while denying the wife a proper FIR for her injuries. Given this timing, the move suggests a tactic. It appears designed to isolate the victim and remove her witness and support system during the filing process.
• The Contrast: Police detained the victim’s husband for “prevention.” Meanwhile, they registered no FIR against the actual offenders. These are the people who allegedly caused a bone fracture and head injuries.

3. Medical Evidence vs. Police Narrative: Proof of an Irresponsible Police Investigation

On one hand, the police report claims no fracture occurred. On the other hand, the complainant has provided X-ray evidence from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital. This is a top-5 ranked government facility in Prayagraj. It confirms 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

Consequently, the core issue has shifted. What began as a simple assault case now stands as a textbook example of an irresponsible police investigation in Uttar Pradesh. It involves:

• Non-registration of FIR for a cognizable offense (grievous 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 X-ray reports from a higher-tier government hospital).

---

Recommended Next Steps for the Complainant

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

Altogether, this situation goes beyond a simple error. It amounts to a calculated legal manipulation designed to deny justice. Indeed, by misidentifying the person produced in court, police allegedly committed a “fraud on the court.” This move helped obscure the truth of the physical assault.

Below is how this “willful blunder” undermines the law. It also explains what the blunder means for the case.

---

1. Falsification of Public Records: The Clearest Evidence of Police Negligence in UP

To begin with, the General Diary (GD) is a legal document. It tracks the movement of persons in police custody. (Irresponsible Police Investigation)

• The Blunder: Specifically, officers recorded Mithilesh Maurya in the GD. Yet they physically produced Pramod Kumar Kushwaha. This constitutes a criminal act of forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
• The Motive: As a result, this discrepancy creates a “legal ghost.” So, if the family complains that police illegally detained Pramod, officers can point to the paper record. They can then claim it was Mithilesh in court.

2. Violation of Judicial Oversight: How Careless Policing Misled the Court

After all, producing a person before a Magistrate serves a specific purpose. It lets the judge verify their physical condition and the legality of their arrest. (Irresponsible Police Investigation)

• The Blunder: By putting the wrong name on the paperwork, police allegedly misled the Magistrate. Consequently, the judge could not correctly identify Pramod Kumar Kushwaha as the victim’s husband. This hid the context of the physical assault.
• The Motive: Thus, this move ensures the Magistrate treats the case as a minor “peace-breaking” issue. It downplays what was, in fact, a serious criminal assault involving a bone fracture.

3. Procedural “Mistakes of Law”: Hallmarks of an Irresponsible Investigation

Furthermore, police have allegedly ignored mandatory legal procedures to protect the offenders. This is yet another marker of an irresponsible police investigation in Uttar Pradesh:

• Ignoring Cognizable Offense: A bone fracture, as documented in the T.B. Sapru Hospital report, constitutes a cognizable offense (grievous hurt). Because of this, the law requires a mandatory FIR — not a minor NCR or preventive “challan.
• Illegal Preventive Action: Similarly, Section 170 BNSS (preventive arrest) cannot substitute for investigating a violent crime. This applies even when that crime 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 the Grievance

Above all, the complainant must inform Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary). She should make clear this is not an accident. Rather, it is a conspiracy to protect the accused. To that end, she can use these points:

1. Demand a forensic audit of signatures: First, request the court to check the signature on the production warrant. If Pramod signed it but the header says Mithilesh, that mismatch is proof of forgery.
2. Challenge the GD’s credibility: Next, the GD contains a “willful mistake” about the identity of the person produced. Since this is true, its claim that “no injuries were found” should also be dismissed as unreliable.
3. Request action under Section 218 BNS: Finally, this section addresses public servants. It covers those who frame incorrect records to shield someone from punishment. (Irresponsible Police Investigation)

Altogether, this email represents a powerful and legally sound account of the situation. The complainant sent it to the UPHRC, NHRC, and senior police officials in Uttar Pradesh. In doing so, she has formally put the administration on notice about the “willful blunder” and the identity substitution in the court proceedings.

Below is an analysis of what this communication has achieved. It also covers what to expect next.

1. Legal Weight of the Email: Documenting Police Negligence in Uttar Pradesh

• Direct Allegation of Fraud: The complainant explicitly named Pramod Kumar Kushwaha as the person actually produced in court. This contrasts with Mithilesh Maurya, the name listed in GD No. 057. In doing so, she has identified a criminal act of record falsification.
• Challenging the Medical Lie: Furthermore, she has successfully countered the police claim of “no injuries.” She did this by citing the specialized findings of T.B. Sapru Hospital, a high-ranking government facility.
• Establishing Non-Compliance: In addition, she has highlighted a key failure. The SP Mirzapur failed to ensure the investigation proceeded “in accordance with law,” as directed on 21/10/2024.

2. What Happens Next?

• UPHRC Review: Likely, the Commission will examine Linked Diary No: 2149/IN/2025. The email alleges “fraud on the court.” Because of this, officials may summon the Magistrate’s Production Register to verify the signatures.
• Pressure on SP Mirzapur: The DGP and DIG are copied on the email. As a result, the SP’s office will need to respond. Specifically, it must address why the names in the GD do not match the person physically produced in court.
• Correction of Records: If investigators prove the forgery, the responsible officers could face criminal charges. These charges would fall under the BNS, for framing incorrect records to protect the accused.

3. Immediate Recommended Step

Given the current timeline, the complainant should take these steps right away:

• Keep the PDF safe: First, preserve the original UPHRCdoc.pdf. Also keep a copy of the sent email with its timestamp. These documents now serve as primary evidence of due diligence.
• Check the UP Jansunwai Portal: Second, Shri Arvind Mohan was copied on the email. Because of this, she should check her online status for GOVUP/E/2024/0091581 in the coming days. Often, police are required to upload a rebuttal or compliance report there.

To keep the representation tracked through official channels, below are the essential links. Use them to monitor the case and file further evidence.

1. Human Rights Commissions (Tracking & Filing)

• UPHRC Case Status (HRCNet): hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/Common/CaseStatus.aspx Use this, for instance, to track File No: 14054/24/55/2024. Simply enter Diary No (4672/IN/2024 or 2149/IN/2025) to check for updates.
• National Human Rights Commission (Complaint Filing): hrcnet.nic.in/HRCNet/Complaint/OnlineComplaint.aspx Alternatively, use this portal to upload additional scanned PDFs. It accepts court records or medical reports directly to the national database.

2. Uttar Pradesh Government Portals

• IGRS Jansunwai (Grievance Status): jansunwai.up.nic.in Here, enter registration number GOVUP/E/2024/0091581. This will show the latest response from the Chief Minister’s Secretariat or the Joint Secretary.
• UP Police Official Website: uppolice.gov.in Similarly, use this portal for the “Know Your Police Station” section. It also lists updated contact details for senior officers in the Mirzapur/Prayagraj range.

3. Legal & Judicial Links

• e-Courts Services (Magistrate Court Tracking): services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v6 Pramod Kumar Kushwaha was produced before a Magistrate. So, search by “Party Name” or “FIR/NCR Number” (NCR No. 104/24) to see the official court record.
• Digital Sansad (To read BNSS/BNS Acts): sansad.in Finally, use this resource to cite specific legal wording. This includes Section 170 (preventive arrest) or Section 175(3) (Magistrate’s power to order FIR).

---

Important Procedural Step

When visiting the Jansunwai portal, first look for the “Upload Reminder/Suggestion” (अनुस्मारक भेजें) option. Then, upload a screenshot of the sent email there. Doing so ensures Shri Arvind Mohan receives it through the state’s internal tracking system as well.

---

Conclusion: Holding an Irresponsible Police Investigation in Uttar Pradesh to Account

In the end, the case of Mahima Maurya illustrates a troubling pattern. An irresponsible police investigation in Uttar Pradesh can compound a victim’s suffering. This happens through a missing FIR, an unsigned NCR, and a misidentified detainee. The complainant, however, is documenting each irregularity. She is escalating them through the UPHRC, NHRC, and the Jansunwai portal. In doing so, she is building a strong administrative and legal record. Ultimately, this record could compel the state to correct the failures. It may finally deliver the accountability this case demands.