Allahabad HC Summons Circle Officer and IO Over Four-Month Delay in Cyber-Crime Investigation

The Allahabad High Court directed a Circle Officer and Investigating Officer to appear in person with the case diary after an FIR under the Information Technology Act went uninvestigated for over four and a half months.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Padam Narain Mishra, on 28 April 2026 took strong exception to the prolonged non-completion of a police investigation in a cyber-crime case registered at Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad. The petitioner, Mithilesh Kumar, had himself lodged the FIR on 10 December 2025 under Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, yet the Investigating Officer had failed to conclude the probe even after more than four and a half months. The bench directed the concerned Circle Officer and the Investigating Officer to appear before the Court in person, produce the original case diary, and file personal affidavits explaining the delay. The matter was listed before an appropriate bench as a fresh case on 6 May 2026.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Mithilesh Kumar filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9325 of 2026 seeking a writ of mandamus against Respondent 2, the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Ghaziabad. The prayer was to direct the Commissioner to ensure fair and proper investigation of Case Crime No. 1293 of 2025, registered under Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act at Police Station Indrapuram, and to bring that investigation to its logical conclusion at the earliest.

The FIR in question had been lodged by Mithilesh Kumar himself on 10 December 2025. Despite being the first informant and the party most directly interested in the probe's completion, the petitioner found himself compelled to approach the High Court because the Investigating Officer had allowed the matter to remain unresolved for over four and a half months.

What the Investigating Agency Said

The Additional Government Advocate, representing the State respondents, offered no specific justification. The submission before the bench was brief: the matter was still under investigation. No reasons were placed on record explaining why the investigation had not moved forward in more than four months.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench did not accept the State's position. It recorded that it could not understand on what ground the investigation had remained pending for more than four and a half months. The Court characterised the Investigating Officer's conduct as “lackadaisical” and said there could be no explanation for keeping the investigation pending so long.

The bench's reasoning turned on the absence of any credible explanation. Where the State could offer nothing beyond a bare acknowledgment that investigation was ongoing, and where the petitioner had waited over four months after lodging the FIR, the Court treated the inaction as unjustified on its face.

A subsequent proceeding on 2 July 2026, before a differently constituted bench of Justice Divesh Chandra Samant and Justice Ajay Bhanot, reflected how the matter had continued to attract judicial attention. That bench directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to appear in person and explain the steps taken to secure the cooperation of the responsible officials of the social media handle ‘X’ with the police investigation. It also noted that police investigations had “abdicated their statutory duties” and that such conduct would enable offenders to evade justice. A copy of that order was directed to be sent to the Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh.

Directions Issued

By its order dated 28 April 2026, the Division Bench directed:

• The concerned Circle Officer and the concerned Investigating Officer shall appear in person before the Court.
• They shall produce the original case diary.
• They shall file personal affidavits explaining the circumstances under which the investigation could not be brought to its logical conclusion despite the expiry of more than four and a half months.

The matter was directed to reappear before an appropriate bench as a fresh case on 6 May 2026. The bench clarified that the matter would not be treated as tied up or part heard to this bench, and that the assignment, if any, stood discharged.

Outcome

The writ petition was not disposed of. The Allahabad High Court kept it alive and required the Circle Officer and Investigating Officer to personally account for the investigation's delay. The subsequent order of 2 July 2026 further escalated the matter by summoning the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and directing communication to senior State officials including the Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh.