Digital rape: Allahabad HC orders inquiry against senior Ghaziabad police officers for not filing FIR

The Allahabad High Court recently ordered an inquiry against various police officers in Ghaziabad, including the commissioner, for failing to register a First Information Report (FIR) on a complaint disclosing commission of digital rape, molestation and other offences [Arpit Gupta v State of UP and 2 Others]

Digital rape involves non-consensual penetration of a victim’s vagina or other private parts by finger, thumb or toe.

In the order passed on August 6, a Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena noted that the failure to register the FIR on the victim’s complaint had compelled her to approach the magistrate 

“It is difficult to understand why the concerned police station did not register an FIR when the prosecutrix approached it with allegations which, on their face, disclosed cognizable offences. It is equally difficult to understand why the complaint dated 07.07.2026 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, did not result in registration of an FIR or in an effective investigation,” the Bench said.

The Court stressed that the police are required to register the information, investigate the allegations and collect evidence. They are not required to decide the ultimate truth or falsity of the allegations at the stage of registration, it added.

Considering the lapses in the case, the Court asked the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh to examine the matter, particularly the conduct of police personnel at Police Station Wave City and the role of concerned officers including the commissioner. 

The DGP was asked to issue show-cause notices to the commissioner, station house officer and other officers requiring them to explain why the FIR was not registered. 

“The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, shall personally supervise the inquiry and shall submit a report, by way of personal affidavit, before this Court within four weeks,” ordered the Court.

The Court passed the order on a petition moved by the accused, one Arpit Gupta, who is stated to be the owner of real estate company Parit Associates (OPC) Private Limited.

Gupta sought quashing of the rape case registered against him on the directions of a magistrate.  

In her application before the Ghaziabad court, the complainant – an employee of Gupta, alleged that he used to molest her in his cabin and threaten her not to disclose the incident to anyone. 

She also alleged that in March 2026 he committed digital rape with her by inserting his finger in her private part. She further said that he put his hand inside her top and pressed her breasts. She resigned from her position on April 8.

Thereafter, the accused allegedly got a case of extortion registered against her on April 14, the Court was told. She was arrested and subsequently granted bail by the High court.

After her release, she lodged a report with the police station at Wave City alleging molestation, digital rape and criminal intimidation. However, after the police failed to act on her complaint, she moved an application before additional chief judicial magistrate at Ghaziabad.

In response to the application, the police said the complainant was asked to provide WhatsApp chats, call recordings or other evidence to support her allegations but she was unable to furnish such material. It also said that allegations appeared to be exaggerated as a pressure tactic or counter-blast to the extortion case. 

However, the magistrate directed the police to register an FIR and probe her allegations in accordance with the law.

Ultimately, the police registered a case against the accused under Sections 64 (rape), 74 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 75(2) (sexual harassment), 76 (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

He then approached the High Court to quash the FIR.

The counsel representing the accused said the police report was not properly considered by the magistrate before ordering investigation against him. He also said allegations of digital rape were inherently improbable when considered against the admitted employment relationship, and “contemporaneous conduct of the parties.”

Considering the submissions, the High Court said the case raises disputed questions of facts which require investigation, examination of witnesses and appreciation of the material in accordance with law. It also found that the magistrate had not overlooked the police report. 

“The fact that the learned Magistrate did not accept the opinion of the police officer does not mean that the report was ignored. A police report submitted at the pre-FIR stage is not binding upon the Magistrate where the complaint, taken at its face value, discloses cognizable offences requiring investigation,” the Bench said.

It further noted that the police report proceeded principally on the basis that the complainant had not produced WhatsApp chats, call recordings or social media conversations.

However, the Court opined that her allegations are not confined to electronic communications.

“The absence of chats or recordings at the preliminary stage does not establish that the allegations are false,” it added.

The Court also said that the existence of the case accusing the complainant of extortion would not bar investigation into the rape case.

The two cases may be investigated and dealt with independently in accordance with law, it said.

It also emphasized that allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace require a sensitive, fair and legally compliant investigation.

The Court, therefore, refused to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition.  

Advocate Anuj Bajpai and Sanjay Kumar Mishra represented the accused.

[Read Order]