Key takeaways from this blog post are as follows

The case of Mahima Maurya vs. the Mirzapur Police highlights a complex struggle between a citizen’s right to justice and administrative pushback. One important aspect in this case involves allegations of misleading information to Mahima Maurya. Here are the key takeaways from the situation:

1. The Conflict Over Injury Severity

The central point of contention is the classification of the crime. Mahima claims to have suffered a hand bone fracture, which qualifies as a cognizable offence requiring an FIR. However, the police and the local CHC (Community Health Centre) categorised the injuries as “normal.” As a result, only an NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) was filed.

2. Allegations of Procedural Manipulation

The appellant alleges several tactical failures by the police to weaken her case:

• Medical Negligence: Claims that an X-ray was intentionally avoided despite visible trauma.
• Pressure Tactics: There are allegations that her husband was coerced into signing “cryptic papers.” Her own statement as the primary victim was ignored.
• Withholding Records: The appeal mentions that a Sub-Inspector has failed to return her original medical treatment records.

3. Misuse of the RTI Process

Mahima argues that the Public Information Officer (PIO) provided justifications instead of legal reasons.

• The RTI aimed to find specific Government Orders (GOs). These orders allow police to bypass victims’ names. They can also refuse FIRs in domestic disputes.
• The police response avoided providing these documents, instead giving a narrative summary of the incident, which the appellant deems “misleading.”

4. The “Cross-Case” Dynamic

The police response justifies their inaction. They point out that a counter-NCR was filed by the opposing party (who are relatives). The narrative states that both parties were injured. This is being used to frame the incident as a mutual scuffle. It overlooks the fact that it was a targeted assault on a woman.

5. Demand for Accountability

The appeal seeks to hold the Vindhyachal Police accountable to the “Right to Reason.” Mahima is challenging the notion that police can remain “powerless” or “teethless” in such situations. She argues for better protection for women from vulnerable sections of society who seek protection under the law.

---

Would you like me to help you draft a formal letter to the District Magistrate? Alternatively, I could help you write to the State Human Rights Commission. This regards the alleged medical and police collusion.

This blog post provides an in-depth analysis of the RTI appeal filed by Mahima Maurya. It highlights the procedural challenges and the quest for justice in cases of alleged police negligence.

---

Misleading information to Mahima Maurya: Analyzing Mahima Maurya’s RTI Battle Against Police Inaction in Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as a tool to empower the common citizen. It brings transparency to the often-opaque corridors of administration. For Mahima Maurya, a resident of Gorsar Sarpati, Mirzapur, the RTI process has become more significant. It is not just a tool for transparency anymore. It is now a secondary battlefield in her struggle for recognition of a physical assault.

On July 23, 2025, Mahima filed a First Appeal (SPMZR/A/2025/60032). She took this step after receiving a response from the Public Information Officer (PIO). She describes this response as “confused, misleading, and incomplete.” This response was about the refusal of the Vindhyachal Police to register a First Information Report (FIR).

The Core Conflict: FIR vs. NCR (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

At the heart of this case is a fundamental legal dispute. Mahima Maurya alleges that she was “mercilessly beaten. This resulted in severe injuries, including a hand bone fracture and serious forehead wounds. Under Indian law, specifically the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, known as BNS, replaced the IPC. Injuries of this nature—particularly fractures—are classified as grievous hurt.

By law, the police must register an FIR if a cognizable offense is disclosed. A cognizable offense is a serious crime where police can arrest without a warrant. Instead, the Vindhyachal Police registered an NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) No. 104/2024.

• The Police Stance: The PIO’s reply suggests that the medical report from CHC Vindhyachal labelled the injuries as “normal.” The police treated the dispute as a minor internal issue because it involved real brothers and sisters-in-law.
• The Appellant’s Contention: Mahima argues that the concerned doctor manipulated the medical examination by intentionally avoiding X-rays. The police pressured her husband to sign “cryptic papers.” They ignored her presence as the actual victim.

---

The RTI Query: Seeking Accountability Through Policy (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

Mahima strategically designed her RTI application to expose the legal basis—or lack thereof—for the police’s refusal to act. Her appeal highlights five critical points of inquiry:

1. The Legality of Excluding the Victim’s Name (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

Mahima sought government orders or circulars. These mandates would permit a Station House Officer (SHO) to omit the victim’s name from an NCR. They would also allow omission from an FIR. Her submission states that she was the informant. Despite having the injuries, the police bypassed her procedural rights.

2. The “Powerless” Police Claim

According to the appeal, the SHO of Vindhyachal advised the victim to “take shelter in an appropriate court.” The officer claimed the police were “powerless” to act. Mahima asked for the exact memos or laws. She requested those that make the police “teethless” in protecting women from vulnerable sections of society.

3. Rights of the Vulnerable Sections (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

A poignant part of her query is whether the Government of Uttar Pradesh has revoked laws. These laws provide justice to aggrieved women. The local administration’s unwillingness to uphold the mandate in Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of UP, which requires police to register an FIR when someone discloses a cognizable offence, highlights deep-seated distrust.

4. The “Right to Reason”

Administrative law grants every citizen the “Right to Reason.” Mahima insisted on knowing the specific reason why the authorities did not register her FIR, despite her visible injuries. She dismissed the PIO’s response, claiming that the opponent also suffered injuries, as a “justification” rather than a legal reason.

---

Procedural Failures and Misleading Information

The appeal process has revealed significant gaps in how the PIO (Om Prakash Singh, ASP Operation) and the local police station handled the request:

• Incomplete Documentation: The appellant claims that the PIO failed to provide any actual government orders or circulars. Instead, they offered a “confused reply.” This reply failed to address the legal queries.
• Medical Negligence Allegations: A serious allegation in the appeal involves “collusion”. This occurs between the police and medical staff. The aim was to weaken the case by not performing an X-ray on a suspected fracture.
• The Counter-Case Tactic: The police response noted that Mahima’s opposite side registered NCR No. 105/2024. This is a common administrative hurdle, as authorities often use “cross-cases” to neutralise the primary victim’s grievances.

---

The FAA’s Responsibility: What Happens Next? (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

The appeal is now before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Somen Verma (SSP Mirzapur). The FAA has a legal obligation to:

1. Review whether the PIO intentionally provided misleading information.
2. Determine if the “missing” government orders actually exist.
3. Address the grievance regarding the non-registration of the FIR in the face of medical evidence of a fracture.

Conclusion: A Test for Transparency

Mahima Maurya’s case is more than a local dispute. It is a test of the RTI Act’s efficacy in the face of police hierarchy. When a citizen asks for the “reason” behind an administrative decision, providing a “summary of the incident” is not enough. The law requires a disclosure of the legal framework that guided that decision.

As this appeal moves forward, it serves as a stark reminder. For marginalised individuals, the road to justice often involves navigating extensive paperwork. They frequently rely on the “Right to Information” as their only available tool. It challenges the “Right to Silence” maintained by local authorities.

Here are the application IDs. The details come from Mahima Maurya’s RTI application and the official records of the Mirzapur Police. The details also include information from the DGP Headquarters. Here are the specific contact details for the authorities who involved in your case.

---

1. RTI Application & Appeal IDs

These numbers are essential for tracking your status on the UP RTI Online Portal. (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

Document Type	Registration Number	Date of Filing	Current Status
Original Application	SPMZR/R/2025/80010	09/06/2025	Disposed (04/07/2025)
First Appeal	SPMZR/A/2025/60032	23/07/2025	Received (Pending)
Transferred Ref.	DGPOF/R/2025/60334	08/06/2025	Transferred to Mirzapur

---

2. Concerned Public Authorities (Mirzapur) (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

The primary responsibility for your case lies with the Superintendent of Police (SP) Office in Mirzapur.

First Appellate Authority (FAA) (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

• Name: Shri Somen Verma (IPS)
• Designation: DIG / SSP Mirzapur
• Mobile: 9454400299 / 7007941679
• Email: spmzr-up@nic.in

Public Information Officer (PIO)

• Name: Om Prakash Singh
• Designation: ASP (Operation), Mirzapur
• Mobile: 7007941679
• Email: aspopmzp@gmail.com

Nodal Officer

• Name: Omprakash Singh
• Email: addlspopmzr@gmail.com

---

3. DGP Headquarters (Lucknow)

Since you filed your initial application at the DGP office, these officers oversee the transfer. (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

• PIO: Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi
• Designation: Additional SP (Public Grievance), DGP HQ
• Mobile: 9454405121
• Email: rti.dgphq-up@gov.in

---

4. Web Link Details (Misleading information to Mahima Maurya)

To monitor your case or file a second appeal if the First Appeal doesn’t resolve satisfactorily, use the following links:

• Tracking Status: UP RTI Online Portal
• Official Police Directory: UP Police Officers List – Mirzapur
• Grievance Redressal: If RTI fails, you can escalate the matter as a grievance on the Jansunwai (I GRS) Portal.

---

Would you like me to help you draft a reminder letter? Address the letter to Shri Somen Verma, the First Appellate Authority. Your appeal has been pending since July 2025.