🚨 Deep-Rooted Corruption Alleged: Mirzapur Police Faces RTI Scrutiny Over Denial of Information to Victim

Mahima Maurya is a resident of Mirzapur. She has filed a First Appeal (u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act) against the Superintendent of Police (SP) Office, Mirzapur. She alleges the police are providing incomplete, misleading, or false information regarding her case. Her appeal details a troubling pattern of apparent bias. It mentions the failure to register an FIR for the prime victim. There is also an unreasoned refusal to conduct necessary medical tests.

The appellant filed the appeal on 13/07/2025 (Registration No. SPMZR/A/2025/60029), which is currently under the purview of the First Appellate Authority, Somen Verma, SSP Mzp. After thoroughly examining previous decisions, the appellant seeks a resolution to the pressing issues raised in the initial complaint. Known for his meticulous approach, the FAA commits to ensuring fairness and reviewing the case details. He is responsible for considering all relevant information. As the process unfolds, both parties eagerly await the FAA’s insights. These insights will ultimately determine the next steps in this legal journey.

---

Key Allegations and Grounds for Appeal

The appellant, Mahima Maurya, has systematically challenged the response provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO). She raised six core points. All points indicate a failure in duty and transparency by the police.
In her appeal, she meticulously outlines each of these points. They highlight significant lapses in the officers’ obligations. These obligations are intended to ensure the public’s right to accessible information.
Moreover, she emphasizes the importance of accountability within the police force. She suggests that such transparent practices are vital. They foster trust and cooperation between law enforcement and the community.
Through her detailed arguments, Maurya calls for a reevaluation of the initial response. She also advocates for reforms. These reforms would enhance the procedural integrity and responsiveness of the PIO’s office.

1. Failure to Register FIR and Provide Reason

• Allegation: Despite being the prime victim, Ms. Maurya went to the police station for a medical examination. Authorities did not include her in the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) or government diary. They did not register her First Information Report (FIR).
• Challenge: The PIO’s reply allegedly references an FIR registered by a person named Pramod Kumar Kushwaha (who was in police custody u/s 151 Cr.P.C.), which some claim is misleading.
• Relief Sought: The applicant is demanding the reason for her exclusion. She is invoking the “Right to reason” as an indispensable part of a sound administrative system.

2. Police Counseling and Authority

• Allegation: The SP’s report allegedly told Ms. Maurya to “ensure to get relief by filing a complaint in the Honourable Court.
• Challenge: The appellant is questioning the legal provision (under BNS and BNSS) that authorizes police personnel to counsel victims. Instead of registering their complaint, police may offer advice. This is especially concerning if such advice stems from an “anarchy and biased approach of police.”
• Relief Sought: The appellant seeks the specific provision of BNS and BNSS. This provision authorizes police to counsel victims. They advise victims to approach the court instead of registering their case.

3. Denial of X-Ray and Discrepancy in Medical Reports

• Allegation: The SP’s report claims Ms. Maurya is showing a fracture “due to injury elsewhere,” and that the medical report of the assault on 14.09.2024 showed no fracture.
• Challenge: The appellant claims her later diagnosis showed a broken bone in her thumb. This X-Ray was from Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital Prayagraj. This contradicts the police’s initial assessment and medical report.
• Relief Sought: Ms. Maurya is seeking the reason for not carrying out an X-Ray Test of the victim initially. Performing the test could have immediately confirmed the injury.

4. Failure to Verify Subsequent Medical Evidence

• Allegation: The police failed to carry out a next medical test. This test would have verified the allegations of the appellant. The allegations were based on the confirmed diagnosis (broken bone) from an independent hospital.
• Challenge: The PIO did not provide the reason. The PIO did not carry out a medical examination. An authentic X-Ray and treatment record backed the appellant’s allegations.
• Relief Sought: The PIO must provide the reason for not conducting another medical examination. This is to verify the new, confirmed medical evidence.

5. Allegation of Habitual Complaining

• Allegation: The SP’s report claimed the information seeker is “accustomed to giving the application again and again.”
• Challenge: The PIO provided misleading information.
• Relief Sought: The appellant demands the police provide a single complaint. This complaint should be out of the “many” where the police submitted a report. It should be according to the submissions of the grievance. This challenges the notion that her complaints are baseless or habitual.

6. False Allegations Against Police Personnel

• Allegation: The SP’s report stated the information seeker is making false allegations against concerned police personnel.
• Challenge: The PIO did not address this specific point.
• Relief Sought: The appellant requests the police to provide the false allegations made by her. These allegations lack “consistent supportive evidence.”

---

⚖️ The Gravity of the Situation

This case transcends a simple request for documents under the RTI Act. It highlights serious allegations against the police force, including:

• Victimization: Allegedly ignoring the prime victim and failing to register her FIR.
• Medical Negligence/Bias: Questionable initial medical examination and refusal to consider subsequent, confirmed medical evidence (X-Ray showing fracture).
• Administrative Failure: Providing misleading information and failing to adhere to the core principle of providing a “reason” for administrative actions.
• Abuse of Authority: Using the authority to counsel a victim to go to court is improper. The authority must perform the mandatory duty of registering a crime.

The RTI Appeal is now with the First Appellate Authority. This step is crucial in holding the Mirzapur Police accountable for its alleged failure to act impartially. The case involves a victim of assault and requires transparency.

---

Do you want to know more about the RTI Appeal process? Or do you want to know about the specific legal provisions (BNS/BNSS) mentioned in the appeal?