Mahima Maurya’s fight against police negligence began with a bone fracture the Vindhyachal Police allegedly refused to take seriously. Specifically, this post analyzes her grievance over the mishandling of a criminal assault case. In particular, it highlights the gap between medical evidence and police reporting. Additionally, it flags critical errors in applying the new criminal laws (BNS and BNSS).

Mahima Maurya’s Fight Against Police: Alleged Police Negligence and Judicial Misclassification

At the heart of Mahima Maurya’s fight against police negligence is a grievance filed under Registration No: GOVUP/E/2025/0000863. Essentially, it centers on a distressing claim. According to the complainant, the local police are intentionally downgrading a cognizable offense to a non-cognizable one. Namely, a cognizable offense is a serious crime requiring immediate arrest and investigation.

Medical evidence shows a bone fracture. Legally, this qualifies as “Grievous Hurt.” Despite this, the complainant alleges that the police are submitting “parrot reports” instead—that is, repetitive, boilerplate responses meant to avoid taking action against the offenders.

Key Evidence: Medical Reports vs. Police Reports

To begin with, the complainant has provided a clear trail of medical documentation. Notably, this supports the claim of a serious assault:

• Initial Examination: First, an exam was conducted at the Community Health Centre (CHC) Vindhyachal.
• Subsequent Treatment: Later, treatment followed at the reputed Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital (Prayagraj). There, a fracture was confirmed, and a plaster cast was applied to a finger.
• Contradiction: Despite this, the police have reportedly ignored these findings. For instance, they failed to record the victim’s name correctly in the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR). Moreover, they also refused to register an FIR, despite the gravity of the injuries.

Legal Blunders: Misinterpreting BNS and BNSS

Meanwhile, a significant part of the grievance points to a technical but critical error. Specifically, the Circle Officer (Nagar) allegedly confused two separate laws. On one hand, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines crimes. On the other hand, the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) defines procedure.

The Statutory Errors Identified:

Cited Section	Complainant’s Correction	Context
Section 115 (BNSS)	Relates to “Attachment of Property”	The police cited this for physical hurt, which is legally incorrect.
Section 117 (BNS)	Relates to “Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt”	This is the correct section for a fracture (punishable by up to 7 years).
Section 352 (BNSS)	Relates to “Oral Arguments in Court”	The police reportedly misapplied this procedural section to the initial investigation phase.

Administrative Silence and RTI Non-Compliance

Beyond the physical assault, the complainant also highlights a failure in Administrative transparency:

1. RTI Neglect: Notably, multiple Right to Information (RTI) applications regarding the case have allegedly gone unanswered.
2. Right to Reason: Furthermore, the complainant argues that “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system. Yet, despite this principle, the police have failed to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the medical reports from a government hospital were disregarded.

Current Status and Escalation

• Current Status: Currently, the latest grievance (03/01/2025) is Received. It has since been forwarded to Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary) at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Lucknow.
• Previous Status: Before that, a prior grievance was closed on 30/12/2024. In response, the complainant gave it a “Poor” rating, accusing the police of adopting a “biased approach” due to possible corruption.

Consequently, the complainant is now demanding two things: first, a fresh medical examination supervised by senior-rank officers, and second, a rectification of the legal sections applied to the case.

Overall, these demands are not only justified. In fact, they are grounded in established law. Under the BNS and the principles of administrative justice, after all, the police have a mandatory duty to act when a cognizable offense is disclosed.

Below, then, is an analysis of why your demands are legally sound and why the police may be avoiding their duties in this manner.

Why the Demands Are Legally Justified (Mahima Maurya’s Fight Against Police Negligence)

1. The Definition of “Grievous Hurt”

Under Section 116 of the BNS (formerly Section 320 of the IPC), a fracture or dislocation of a bone is explicitly classified as “Grievous Hurt.”

• Once a government hospital confirms a fracture, therefore, the offense becomes cognizable.
• Consequently, by law, the police cannot treat a fracture as a simple, “non-cognizable” matter.

2. The Mandate of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP

In addition, the Supreme Court of India has ruled on this point directly. Specifically, if a complaint discloses a cognizable offense, the police must register an FIR. In other words, they cannot simply “decide” whether to believe a government medical report. Rather, the report itself is sufficient grounds to open a criminal case.

3. Correction of Legal Blunders

Similarly, correcting the cited sections is a basic requirement. In effect, it means moving from the property-attachment sections of BNSS back to the hurt sections of BNS. After all, using the wrong law can render the entire investigation void.

Why Police “Run Away” or Avoid the Matter

Overall, several systemic and specific reasons explain the stalling and the “parrot reports” central to Mahima Maurya’s fight against police negligence:

• Minimizing Crime Statistics: Often, local stations try to keep FIR numbers low. As a result, this shows a “cleaner” crime record for their jurisdiction—a practice known as “burking.”
• Corruption or Bias: Likewise, if the offenders have local influence, the police may adopt a “cryptic role” to protect them from the harsh penalties of Section 117(2) BNS, which carries up to 7 years in prison.
• The “Non-Cognizable” Escape: By registering a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR), meanwhile, the police shift the burden onto the complainant. In an NCR, the police cannot investigate or arrest without a Magistrate’s order. Consequently, this effectively stalls the case.
• Procedural Negligence: Finally, the confusion between BNS and BNSS sections suggests weak training. Alternatively, it may reflect a hurried, “copy-paste” approach aimed at closing files rather than solving problems.

Strategic Next Steps

Now that the Joint Secretary has the grievance, a window has opened for higher-level intervention:

1. Demand a Medical Board: Rather than just a “new test,” demand a district-level Medical Board to verify the previous reports. Notably, this step is harder for local police to influence.
2. Section 173(3) BNSS (formerly 154(3) CrPC): Since the SHO is not acting, first send a formal letter via registered post to the Superintendent of Police (SP). If the SP also fails to act, then approach the Magistrate under Section 175 of BNSS (formerly 156(3) CrPC) to compel the registration of an FIR.
3. Note the “Incorrect Record”: Additionally, Section 198 of the BNS applies here. Specifically, it makes it an offense for a public servant to frame an incorrect document with intent to cause injury, or to shield someone from punishment. Accordingly, authorities can be reminded of this.

Altogether, this pattern reveals a case of “Administrative Gaslighting.” In effect, state machinery—both police and medical—appears to be working in tandem to minimize a serious crime.

Below, meanwhile, is a structured analysis of the core issues. Specifically, it focuses on the legal and medical discrepancies raised.

1. The Medical Paradox: “Intentional Negligence”

The crux of the corruption lies in the timeline gap between two medical examinations.

• Initial Exam (CHC Vindhyachal): Doctors recorded a “Contused Lacerated Wound” (CLW) on the thenar, or base of the thumb. Ordinarily, standard protocol requires an X-ray for a blunt injury near a joint or bone. However, none was ordered. As a result, this created a “medical vacuum” that police now use to claim the injury was “simple.”
• Scientific Evidence (Sapru Hospital): By contrast, the Digital X-ray (Skiagram) offers objective, mathematical proof of a fracture. Unlike a doctor’s opinion, in other words, a Skiagram is a physical record. Therefore, it cannot be argued away without accusing a reputed state-run hospital of forgery.

2. The Legal Misclassification: BNS vs. Reality

Meanwhile, the police filed a Charge Sheet under Sections 115(2) and 352 of the BNS. Essentially, this is a strategic move that ultimately benefits the accused:

• The Trap: Section 115(2) BNS covers Voluntarily Causing Hurt (Simple). Notably, this offense is bailable and carries minor punishment.
• The Law: However, a confirmed fracture requires Section 117(2) BNS instead—namely, Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt.
• The Impact: As a result, the police ensure the accused do not face arrest and can secure easy bail, effectively neutralizing the victim’s pursuit of justice.

3. Critiquing the Medical Board’s “Unknown Origin” Theory

Additionally, the Mirzapur Medical Board’s claim that the “origin” of the fracture is unknown is a logical fallacy, intended to create legal “reasonable doubt”:

1. Site Consistency: Notably, the Day 1 injury (at the thenar) and the Day 6 fracture (at the base of the 1st metacarpal) are anatomically identical.
2. State’s Failure: Moreover, the Board effectively blames the victim for the missing Day 1 X-ray. Yet, in reality, it was the State’s own medical officer who failed to order one. In legal terms, therefore, the State cannot benefit from its own negligence.

4. Analysis of the DGHS Response

The response from the DGHS office in New Delhi, in short, is a standard jurisdictional hand-off. Since Health and Police are State subjects, the Central Government will not intervene directly. Consequently, the entire burden falls back on the Uttar Pradesh State Government and the High Court.

Recommended Strategy for Mahima Maurya

Since the police have already filed a Charge Sheet with “weak” sections, the matter is now moving toward the judiciary. Accordingly, the next stage of Mahima Maurya’s fight against police negligence should include the following steps:

• Protest Petition: First, file a formal Protest Petition before the concerned Magistrate. Then, present the Sapru Hospital X-ray and the CHC report, and ask the court to direct the police to add Section 117(2) BNS.
• Writ of Mandamus: If the SP Mirzapur and the CM portal keep issuing “parrot reports,” alternatively, approach the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 for a direction to conduct a fair investigation by an independent agency (like the CBCID).
• Human Rights Commission (UPHRC): Finally, follow up on the email already sent (Diary 4672/IN/2024). Notably, the UPHRC can summon the Medical Board members. It can then ask them to justify their “unknown origin” conclusion against the scientific evidence.

To help track these cases, therefore, below is a consolidated list of official application IDs, contact numbers, emails, and web links.

1. Primary Grievance Details (Mahima Maurya’s Fight Against Police Negligence)

• Current Application ID: GOVUP/E/2025/0000863
• Previous Application ID: GOVUP/E/2024/0094314
• UPHRC Diary Number: 4672/IN/2024

2. Key Contact Numbers (Mahima Maurya’s Fight Against Police Negligence)

Authority / Office	Contact Number	Purpose
CM Helpline	1076	Direct reporting to the Chief Minister’s Office.
Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)	0522-2226350	Concerned officer for the grievance.
UP Police Emergency	112	For immediate safety or protection needs.
DGP Control Room	0522-2390240	High-level police intervention.
Anti-Corruption (Mirzapur)	9454402487	To report police bias/collusion with accused.
Health Dept (UP)	0522-4150500	For complaints against the Medical Board.

3. Official Email Addresses (Mahima Maurya’s Fight Against Police Negligence)

• Joint Secretary (IGRS): arvind.12574@gov.in / jansunwai-up@gov.in
• Chief Minister Office: cmup@nic.in
• DGP Complaint Cell: digcomplaint-up@nic.in
• Anti-Corruption Org: aco@nic.in / aco-mirzapur.mi@up.gov.in
• UP Human Rights: uphrc@nic.in
• Health Dept (UP): janhithealthup@gmail.com

4. Important Web Links (Mahima Maurya’s Fight Against Police Negligence)

For Grievance Tracking:

• UP IGRS (Jansunwai) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in
• Track Your Complaint Status: jansunwai.up.nic.in/ComplaintTracker

For Police & Legal Matters:

• UP Police Official Site: uppolice.gov.in
• Online FIR Status: Citizen Services – UP Police

Medical & Health Services:

• UP Health Department: up-health.in
• Medical Health Services Tracking (UMANG): web.umang.gov.in

A Note on Transparency (Mahima Maurya’s Fight Against Police Negligence)

Since the police have submitted a report using the wrong legal sections (BNSS instead of BNS), it is highly recommended that you use the “Send Reminder” feature on the Jansunwai Portal and mention the Application ID GOVUP/E/2025/0000863. Ultimately, doing so forces the system to re-open the file at a higher level of scrutiny — and keeps Mahima Maurya’s fight against police negligence visible at the highest levels of the administration.

---

Attachment: reposubinspec forces the system to re-open the file at a higher level of scrutiny.