Explore the incredible false report of police in the Mirzapur case, shedding light on the intricate dynamics that often surround law enforcement actions. In this particular instance, the misuse of provisions against genuine complaints became glaringly apparent, raising critical questions about accountability and transparency within the police system. Victims of false allegations sometimes find themselves trapped in a web of legal complications, where the very mechanisms designed to uphold justice turn against them. This situation not only undermines public trust in the police but also discourages legitimate complainants from coming forward. Understanding how such provisions can be manipulated helps to advocate for reforms that ensure a fair and impartial approach to handling complaints, fostering a safer and more just environment for all citizens involved in similar predicaments.

Incredible False Report of Police: How a Fabricated Field-Verification Record Buried a Property Fraud Complaint in Mirzapur

Introduction

Preventive provisions exist for a legitimate purpose. Today’s Section 126/135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) lets police and magistrates step in before a dispute turns violent. Its predecessor was Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, what happens when officers invoke these provisions to quietly shelve a fraud complaint instead? This post examines what can only be called an incredible false report of police. It’s a real, ongoing case from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. The post also lists the official channels any citizen can use in a similar situation.

Background of the Case

Naresh Kumar Jaiswal lives in Sureka Puram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur. He filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, on 21 February 2026. Specifically, he alleged that someone had alienated ancestral coparcenary land at Khasra No. 203, Village Bhatewara (Kon), Mirzapur. The sale transactions, he said, concealed his rightful share as a coparcener. As a result, these facts attract Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC (and corresponding BNS provisions). They also fall squarely within the Supreme Court’s binding direction in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. That ruling mandates FIR registration whenever a complaint discloses a cognizable offence.

Point 1: Two Enquiries, No Documentary Verification

Two successive enquiry reports closed the matter — one dated 31 March 2026, the other 19 August 2026. Neither examined the sale deeds or the mutation entries. Nor did either report examine the Bhulekh/Khatauni revenue records submitted with the complaint. Neither report recorded a statement from the purchasers named in those records. Neither addressed whether legal necessity existed for the transfers. Instead, both reports pivot to an unrelated matrimonial proceeding pending before the Family Court, Gorakhpur. They treat the property complaint as incidental to that dispute, not as an allegation worth examining on its own merits.

Consequently, this points to a recognizable administrative failure: non-application of mind. A report that never engages the specific documentary allegation cannot count as a genuine disposal of it. This holds true however complete the report looks on paper.

Point 2: The Incredible False Report — A Photograph That Doesn’t Match

Separately, a General Diary entry recorded a preventive action under Section 126/135 BNSS. It is GD No. 039, dated 06/03/2026, Police Station Chilh, and it targets the complainant and his father. The entry claims an officer visited the village, met both parties, and counselled them to maintain peace. A geotagged photograph supposedly backs this claim.

Yet the individuals in that photograph don’t match either the complainant or his father. This mismatch is the crux of the problem. A formal government record asserts a field verification that the photographic evidence doesn’t support. So, did the claimed spot-verification and counselling actually happen? A preventive action built on an unverified field record isn’t a minor technical lapse. Ultimately, it undermines the very legal basis for taking that action in the first place.

Point 3: What the Law Actually Requires

An official 2021 circular speaks directly to this problem. On 9 September 2021, the Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued a Home Department press communication. It followed directions from the Allahabad High Court. The circular laid down clear guidelines for exercising preventive powers under Sections 107/116/151 CrPC, the predecessor to BNSS 126/135.

Specifically, the circular directs every District Magistrate, Executive Magistrate, and police officer to apply these powers strictly within law and due process. This chain of accountability runs from the Director General of Police down to each Superintendent of Police. In particular, officers must use judicious application of mind so that citizens’ fundamental rights stay protected. Furthermore, the circular states that anyone who suffers illegal or improper detention/restraint is entitled to Rs. 25,000 in compensation. The responsible officer, in turn, faces disciplinary action under service rules.

Importantly, this circular is public government policy, not a private demand. It exists precisely to prevent situations like the one described here.

Point 4: The Broader Pattern — Why an Incredible False Report Should Never Be the Final Word

Ultimately, the real story here is the pattern, not any single incident. First, a citizen raises a documented fraud complaint. Then, the enquiry sidesteps the documents and focuses on unrelated family matters instead. Meanwhile, police separately record a preventive action against the same citizen, apparently without genuine verification. As a result, an incredible false report of police sits on an official file. Any one of these steps might pass as an isolated lapse. Together, though, they describe a system where administrative closure replaces actual investigation.

Moreover, the consequences extend beyond the immediate parties. Ancestral property disputes routinely affect the next generation. Children’s eventual inheritance rights depend on whether the alienation of family land was lawful. Under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, daughters hold equal coparcenary rights by birth. So unresolved fraud in ancestral land doesn’t just affect the current generation — it carries forward.

Official Channels Available to Citizens in Similar Situations

For readers facing comparable issues, here are the legitimate, official avenues:

1. Jansunwai Portal (CM Grievance Portal, Uttar Pradesh) Web: https://jansunwai.up.nic.in This case has moved through this portal across four registration numbers: GOVUP/E/2026/0022145, GOVUP/E/2026/0083234, GOVUP/E/2026/0108074, and GOVUP/E/2026/0108102.

2. Chief Minister Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh Office: Lok Shikayat Anubhag-3, CM Secretariat, Room No. 321, U.P. Secretariat, Lucknow Contact Officer: Shri Bhaskar Chandra Kandpal, Joint Secretary Email: bhaskar.31532[at]gov[dot]in Phone: 0522-2226350

3. Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur Here, citizens can lodge complaints, file RTI applications, and follow up on enquiry reports. This office oversees Police Station Chilh and Police Station Kotwali, Mirzapur.

4. RTI Online Portal, Uttar Pradesh Web: https://rtionline.up.gov.in Through this portal, citizens can request certified copies of General Diary entries, enquiry reports, and departmental circulars. Requests go directly to the Public Information Officer of the concerned police office.

5. Allahabad High Court / District Legal Services Authority, Mirzapur Citizens can exhaust administrative remedies and still find no resolution. Even then, they can file a formal application under Section 156(3) BNSS before the jurisdictional Magistrate. This judicial remedy stands independent of the police grievance process.

Conclusion

In the end, preventive powers exist to stop conflict before it escalates. They cannot substitute for a genuine fraud investigation, and officers cannot invoke them on the strength of unverifiable field records. An incredible false report of police doesn’t simply fade away once it sits on an official file. Instead, it demands active, documented challenge through the right institutional channels. As of August 2026, this case remains under active review through the Jansunwai portal and connected RTI applications. This post documents the case not to prejudge the outcome. Rather, it aims to show — through specific dates, registration numbers, and an official 2021 government circular — why transparent verification matters, and why the channels above exist for exactly this purpose.

This post reflects the complainant’s submissions to date and publicly available government circulars. The underlying allegations remain pending before the competent authorities.