The Supreme Court warned the UP Police that it could be disbanded over a flawed criminal investigation. Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva said, “This nonsense has to stop at some point.” The court questioned why police failed to name a caught suspect in an FIR, raising serious trust issues.

The two-judge bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva warned the UP Police that it could be disbanded and that all criminal cases in the state could be handed over to the CBI if the “nonsense” did not stop at some point, Bar and Bench reported.

“In everything you have an agenda. How will people trust you if this is how you proceed with matters? It is better if we ask CBI to step in all UP Police investigations. We might as well disband the UP Police. This nonsense has to stop at some point,” the court said.

Why did the judges rebuke UP Police?

The judges made the remarks while hearing a matter after a PIL was filed by a complainant over an incident involving a motorcycle. In the PIL, the complainant alleged that the UP Police deliberately registered an FIR against “unknown” persons despite the fact that she had physically apprehended the rider and handed him over to the police, raising questions about the investigation.

The court expressed dismay that despite the accused being caught, his name was not mentioned in the FIR and noted that such conduct could undermine citizens' trust in the UP Police. The complainant also said that after the High Court intervened earlier in the case, the police subsequently inserted the rider's name in the chargesheet and later gave him a clean chit.

“You catch the accused at the spot but you don’t want to name him in the FIR. Perhaps if the equation works out you can substitute the name, bring in one of your own names, you must keep a list of accused in different FIRs whoever has gotten lesser number of FIRs you can include his name. Is that how it works there?” the bench asked, according to Bar and Bench.

The court also noted that the affidavit filed by the UP Police was uninspiring and ordered the officer in charge of the case to be present at the next hearing and explain why the rider's name was initially missing from the FIR and why it was disclosed later in the affidavit.