In a sharp courtroom exchange, the Allahabad High Court questioned the conduct of a senior police officer over the language used in an affidavit filed in a bail matter. The court did not proceed to decide the bail plea and instead focused on accountability.
Background of the Case
The issue arose during the hearing of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR in Harshit Sharma and 2 Others v State of UP and 2 Others. The complaint alleges that the accused took ₹80 lakh from the informant on the promise of securing a job, later failing to return the money and issuing threats.
Read also:- No Absolute Right to Choose School Under RTE: Delhi HC Rejects Appeal
While the Union Minister is not an accused, his name appears in the FIR.
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena took note of how the Minister’s name was recorded without customary honorifics.
“The Additional Chief Secretary (Home)… will explain… why the Hon’ble Union Minister… has not been described with the usual honorific,” the Bench directed.
Read also:- NSA Detention Challenge Referred to Larger Bench: MP High Court Flags Key Legal Conflict
The Court further remarked that even if the complainant omitted such titles, it was the duty of the police to follow established protocol while preparing the FIR.
In a separate matter, the Court also questioned a police officer for using the phrase “court below” for a trial court, calling for an explanation regarding the language used in official filings.
The Bench directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit explaining the omission. The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 6, 2026.
