Justice Delayed and Procedure Denied: The Struggle for Accountability in Mirzapur

In a functional democracy, the police force serves as the primary shield for the citizen. However, when that shield becomes a wall of administrative silence and procedural obfuscation, the citizen is left in a state of legal limbo. The case of Mahima Maurya vs. the District Police of Mirzapur highlights a troubling intersection of alleged abuse of power, non-compliance with Human Rights Commission directives, and the apparent misuse of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) framework.

The Genesis of the Grievance: A Cry for Justice

The matter originated from a physical altercation on September 14, 2024, involving Mahima Maurya and her brother-in-law, Manoj Kumar Kushwaha. According to the victim, she was mercilessly beaten, resulting in a fractured finger and serious head injuries—claims supported by medical records and X-ray reports from the Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital in Prayagraj.

Despite the severity of the injuries, which typically warrant the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for cognizable offenses, the Vindhyachal police allegedly opted for a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR). This distinction is vital: an FIR compels the police to investigate, while an NCR generally does not, unless directed by a Magistrate.

The UPHRC Intervention and Administrative Defiance

Seeking redressal, the complainant approached the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC). Recognizing the gravity of the allegations, the Commission issued a directive (Diary No 4672/IN/2024) on October 21, 2024. The order was clear: the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur, was to look into the matter and “do the needful in accordance with law” within six weeks, with an intimation to the complainant.

As of January 2025, that six-week window has long since closed. The core of the current grievance lies in this silence. The “Right to Reason”—a principle upheld by the Apex Court as indispensable to both judicial and administrative systems—has been ignored. The victim is left asking: Why was the Commission’s order not complied with?

The RTI Deadlock: Transparency Under Fire

To pierce the veil of silence, a Right to Information (RTI) application (Reg No: SPMZR/R/2024/60208) was filed on November 14, 2024. Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Public Information Officer (PIO) is mandated to provide a response within 30 days.

Over 60 days have passed, yet the information seeker remains in the dark. This failure to respond is not merely a delay; it is a statutory violation. It suggests a systemic effort to shield the details of the investigation (or lack thereof) from public and legal scrutiny.

Legal Incongruities: The BNSS and Misapplied Sections

One of the most technical and alarming aspects of this case is the alleged misuse of legal sections in the police reports sent to the Chief Minister’s Office. The police cited:

• Section 115 of BNSS: Pertains to assistance in relation to orders of attachment or forfeiture of property.
• Section 352 of BNSS: Pertains to oral arguments and memorandums in court.

As the complainant rightly points out, these sections are procedural tools for the Court, not penal sections for registering a crime at a police station. Using “court-stage” sections to categorize a physical assault (NCR No. 104/24) raises serious questions about the legal literacy or the intent of the local police. If the police are registering reports under sections that do not apply to the incident, it effectively renders the legal document toothless.

Section Cited	Actual Purpose under BNSS	Relevance to Assault
Section 115	Property Attachment/Forfeiture	None (Relates to financial/property crime)
Section 352	Oral Arguments in Court	None (Relates to trial procedure)

The “Tetra-Polar” Fabric: Allegations of Collusion

The complainant describes the current situation as a “tetra-polar” failure involving:

1. The Police: For failing to register an FIR for a cognizable injury.
2. Medical/Health Dept: Disregarding the valid medical reports from Prayagraj.
3. Quasi-Judicial Courts: Potential misuse of preventive detention (Section 170 BNSS / 151 CrPC).
4. Victim/Accused Dynamics: Bias in the treatment of the parties involved.

The arrest of Mithilesh Maurya from Prayagraj under apprehension of “breach of peace” in Mirzapur is cited as a prime example of “concocted stories.” How can a person from a different district be designed to commit a cognizable offense in such a manner that warrants preventive arrest, while the actual physical assault on the victim is downplayed?

The Demand for Accountability

The fundamental request of this petition is simple: Provide the Reason.

• Why was the fractured bone and head injury treated as a non-cognizable offense?
• Why has the SP Mirzapur ignored the UPHRC’s six-week deadline?
• Why has the PIO failed to fulfill the RTI mandate?

When the police ignore constitutional functionaries like the Human Rights Commission, it erodes the rule of law. The complainant is not just seeking a trial; she is seeking the basic administrative honesty required to start the legal process.

Conclusion: A Test for the Administration

The case of Mahima Maurya is a litmus test for the Mirzapur administration. Justice is not only about the final verdict; it is about the integrity of the process. If the “Right to Reason” is denied, the system ceases to be a service to the public and becomes a tool for the powerful.

The authorities must now act to:

1. Comply with the UPHRC directive immediately.
2. Provide the RTI response as mandated by law.
3. Re-evaluate the medical evidence under senior supervision to ensure the correct penal sections are applied.

This latest correspondence introduces a grave escalation in your case—moving from simple administrative negligence to allegations of custodial fraud and identity substitution.

Below is a structured analysis of this development, formatted to highlight the severe legal implications of the “Identity Substitution” and “Medical Falsification” you have reported.

---

Administrative Fraud: When Law Enforcers Become Law Breakers

The case of Mahima Maurya vs. State of UP has transitioned from a dispute over police inaction to a matter of criminal conspiracy within the department. According to the latest evidence, the Vindhyachal police have not only defied the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) but have allegedly committed “Fraud on the Court.

1. The Core Allegation: Identity Substitution

The most shocking revelation in the email dated December 27, 2025, is the discrepancy between the General Diary (GD) No. 057 and the physical reality of the court production.

• The Record: GD No. 057 states that Mithilesh Maurya was produced before the Magistrate.
• The Reality: The complainant alleges that her husband, Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, was the one actually presented in the dock, under the false name of Mithilesh.

This is a serious offense under the Indian Penal Code (and the corresponding BNSS sections) related to personation and furnishing false information to a public servant. If proven, it invalidates the entire legal proceeding of that day.

2. Documented Falsification of Medical State

The police records claim the parties were “free from fresh injuries” on September 14, 2024. This directly contradicts the clinical findings from T.B. Sapru Hospital, Prayagraj, which documented:

• A fractured thumb (Grievous Hurt).
• Head injuries requiring stitches.

By marking the parties as “injury-free,” the police systematically blocked the path for a Cognizable Offense (FIR). Under the law, if a bone is fractured, it is categorized as “Grievous Hurt” ($Section 320 IPC$ / $Section 117 BNS$), making it mandatory for the police to register an FIR rather than a mere NCR.

3. The “Willful Blunder”: Legal Implications

The term “willful blunder” used by the complainant describes a deliberate attempt to mislead the Commission. The legal consequences for the officers involved are severe:

1. Contempt of Commission: Defying the UPHRC order dated 21/10/2024.
2. Forgery ($Section 465 IPC$): Creating a false General Diary entry.
3. Fabricating Evidence ($Section\ 193\ IPC$): Presenting the wrong person in court to create a false record.

Fact per Police GD	Fact per Victim/Hospital	Legal Violation
Person Produced: Mithilesh	Person Produced: Pramod Kumar	Identity Fraud / Personation
Health: No Fresh Injuries	Health: Fracture & Stitches	Falsification of Records
Offense: Minor Dispute	Offense: Physical Assault	Suppression of Cognizable Crime

4. Path Forward: The Strategy for Redressal

The prayer to the Commission is now focused on forensic and documentary verification. To bring this to a conclusion, the following steps are critical:

• Signature Verification: The “Production Register” at the Magistrate’s court is the ultimate evidence. Comparing the signature of the person produced with the real Mithilesh Maurya’s signature will prove the substitution.
• CCTV Footage: If available at the court premises, this would provide irrefutable proof of who was in the dock.
• Fresh Hearing: Re-opening Case No: 14054/24/55/2024 is necessary to examine these criminal irregularities.

Conclusion: A Systemic Breakdown

When the police record “no injuries” for a woman with a fractured hand and stitches on her head, it is no longer a “mistake”—it is a conspiracy to deny justice. The UPHRC and the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, must now treat this not as a simple complaint, but as a criminal investigation into the conduct of the Vindhyachal police station.

Based on your case details and the official records, here are the essential contact details for the authorities you are engaging with.

1. Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC)

• Website: hrcup.org
• Email: uphrc@sancharnet.in / complain@hrcup.org
• Phone (CUG): 9454003726
• Office Numbers: 0522-2726742 / 0522-2726743
• Address: TC-34 V-1, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

---

2. Mirzapur District Authorities

To address the “Identity Substitution” and “General Diary Forgery” issues locally:

Office	Designation	Mobile (CUG)	Email
SP Mirzapur	Superintendent of Police	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
ASP City	Addl. SP (City)	9454401104	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
CO Sadar	Circle Officer (Sadar)	9454401591	co-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
DM Mirzapur	District Magistrate	9454417567	dmmir@nic.in

---

3. State Level Oversight (UP Police HQ)

Since you are alleging fraud by the local police, these higher offices are critical for intervention:

• DGP Uttar Pradesh:
  • Email: dgpcontrol-up@nic.in
  • CUG: 9454400101
• ADG Human Rights (Police HQ):
  • Email: humanrightshq@nic.in
  • CUG: 9454400120
• UP Chief Minister (Jansunwai/IGRS Portal):
  • Website: jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • CM Helpline: 1076

---

4. Important Web Links

• UP Police Officer Profiles: uppolice.gov.in (To verify current postings of officers mentioned in your GD).
• HRCNet (Complaint Tracking): hrcnet.nic.in (Use this to track your linked diary numbers 309/IN/2025 and 2149/IN/2025).

A Note on the Date: Your records mention dates up to January 2026. Ensure all future correspondence uses the current year 2026 to avoid any clerical “mistakes” by the department regarding the timeline of events.

Would you like me to draft a specific “Application for Inquiry into Identity Fraud” addressed to the ADG Human Rights, citing the CUG numbers provided above?