The pursuit of justice often pits an individual against systemic inertia. This post examines the detailed objections filed by Naresh Kumar Jaiswal to the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC). These objections challenge the investigation report prepared by the Circle Officer (CO) Sadar, Mirzapur. It highlights how the local police allegedly failed to investigate serious criminal offences. The police face accusations of neglecting human rights violations tied to ancestral property fraud.

I. The Core Grievance: Criminality Disguised as Civil Dispute

Mr Jaiswal’s initial complaint centred on two main violations. The first was the fraudulent sale of his ancestral property by his father and brother. The second involved the subsequent inaction and cover-up by the local police, specifically the SHO at P.S. Chilh. (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

A. Evasion of Duty: The Criminal Breach of Trust (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

The investigation report, dated 19/10/2025, is primarily objected to because it completely ignored the criminal aspects of the case:

• Admission of Sale Ignored: The report itself quotes the father, Ashok Jaiswal, admitting that land was sold “when necessary. The applicant and his minor daughter hold a birthright as coparceners in the ancestral property. They sold this property during the pendency of a related court case, Criminal Misc. Case No. 915/2021. This act directly mandates an investigation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
• Arbitrary Classification: The CO acted arbitrarily and dismissed the entire matter as a civil dispute (“division/share of ancestral land/house”). They advised the Applicant to approach the Civil Court. This is a deliberate evasion of the mandatory duty of the police. They are required to register a First Information Report (FIR). Additionally, they must investigate cognizable offenses. These include Criminal Breach of Trust (BNS Sec. 316) and Cheating (BNS Sec. 318).

The Applicant asserts that this failure violates his Right to Effective Remedy (UDHR Article 8). It also disregards binding NHRC guidelines on prompt registration of complaints.

II. Procedural Failures and Denial of Natural Justice

The investigators severely undermined the investigation’s credibility and neutralitythrough their conduct. (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

A. The Flawed ‘Telephonic Inquiry’ (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

• Violation of Due Process: The CO report admits that officials only “contacted” the Applicant through mobile and questioned him. The Applicant states that they did not formally summon him to appear. They did not ask him to submit documentary evidence. This includes documents such as land records or litigation papers. They also did not require him to present witness testimony.
• Ex parte reliance: The investigation relied primarily on the opponent’s (father’s) statement. It avoided a thorough, documented process. The investigation became ex parte and perfunctory. This is a gross violation of Natural Justice. The victim was denied the basic right to present his case fully.

B. Unaddressed Police Inaction

The core of the human rights complaint was the SHO P.S. Chilh’s original refusal to register the FIR. The CO’s report completely failed to investigate this initial act. It did not justify the negligence and violation of duty. This failure led to the protection of the subordinate police personnel. (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

III. The Critical Contradiction: Exposing Ulterior Motive

The most compelling objection lies in the logical contradiction present in the father’s defense. The police report failed to scrutinize this contradiction.

A. The False Narrative of Misconduct (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

The CO report promotes the father’s narrative. It alleges that the Applicant’s misconduct caused the court case and led to the Applicant’s isolation. This misconduct includes ill-treating or quarrelling with his wife.

B. The Ulterior Motive Exposed

The Applicant challenges this: (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

1. If the father were genuinely concerned about the wife and the five-year-old minor daughter, he would have an ethical duty. His duty would be to protect the ancestral property share of the minor coparcener.
2. The father is selling the ancestral property. He is actively depriving the Applicant, his wife, and his minor daughter of their legal share.

The father’s true motive is not about the Applicant’s conduct. This inconsistency shows an ulterior motive to fraudulently usurp the entire ancestral estate. He seeks to benefit himself and the younger brother. This action is prejudicial and aims to defeat any future court judgment related to maintenance or property division.

IV. Dismissal of Human Rights Issues (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

The CO’s investigation also neglected serious human rights violations against the Applicant:

• Transfer of Liability (Dowry): The Applicant explicitly stated that the father took the dowry and ornaments. The Applicant did not take them. The father’s subsequent actions show malicious intent. He is selling assets while the Applicant faces the legal consequences of the Gorakhpur case. These actions demonstrate criminal injustice.
• Defamation Ignored: The report failed to investigate the father’s repeated act. He spread baseless claims of mental illness against the Applicant. The Applicant is a commerce graduate. People made these claims without any medical evidence.This is a severe attack on the Applicant’s dignity and reputation, potentially falling under BNS Section 351 (Defamation).

V. Prayer for Higher Intervention

The Applicant has respectfully prayed to the UPHRC to reject and set aside the arbitrary investigation report. Key relief sought includes:

• Immediate Registration of FIR under BNS Sections 316, 318, and 351.
• Directing the Superintendent of Police to assign the investigation to an impartial, senior officer (e.g., ASP/Deputy SP) from outside the local area.
• Disciplinary action should be recommended against the Circle Officer and the SHO. This is due to their negligence and failure to adhere to mandatory legal and human rights guidelines.

Date and Events

Information (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

Here is the additional, publicly available information for the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) that was not in your documents:

🏛️ UPHRC Details (Information Not in Documents)

1. 👤 Current Leadership (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

The position of Chairman is generally held by a retired Chief Justice or Judge of a High Court.

2. 📧 Specific Contact Information

3. 🗺️ Headquarters (Full Address Confirmation) (Police Reports in UPHRC Cases)

Related: Ancestral Properties Controversy: Legal Rights Explained