1. Assault and witnessing of murder during communal riots — failure of police to register FIR for assault and record eyewitness statement — writ petition for SIT investigation. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1671
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3976 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8494 of 2025)
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Adv. Mr. M.huzaifa, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Adv. Mr. M.huzaifa, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
FIR – If information received disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to register FIR.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – Once information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given to officer-in-charge of a police station, investigative machinery is required to be set in motion – If information received revealed commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to record substance of information in a book to be kept by officer in prescribed form – In effect, if information received disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to register FIR – Appellant was subjected to assault during riots, requiring his hospitalization for his head injury – At the very least, assault upon him would have constituted offence under Sections 324 or 325 or 326 of IPC, which are all cognizable, and required decisive and prompt action on part of Police as soon as they came to know about it – When members of police force don their uniforms, they are required to shed their personal predilections and biases, be they religious, racial, casteist or otherwise – They must be true to call of duty attached to their office and their uniform with absolute and total integrity – In the case on hand, this did not happen – This is a fit case to direct Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a special investigation team, comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, to undertake investigation into all allegations made by appellant, by registering FIR. (Paras 16, 19, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Complaint of the appellant before High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, was that police officers concerned had failed in their duty by not registering a first information report apropos attack and assault on him by four individuals on 13.05.2023. However, by order dated 25.07.2024, a Division Bench of High Court dismissed his writ petition, suspecting his bonafides. Hence, this appeal.
Findings of Court:
Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officials, in accordance with law and due procedure, for patent dereliction of duties. Measures shall also be initiated to instruct and sensitize rank and file in police department as to what law requires of them in discharge of their duties.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleged police dereliction of duty and biased investigation — State contended the appellant was unfit to give a statement and the petition was filed belatedly. (Para 2 , 7 , 8 , 11 )
3. Police failed to register FIR despite knowledge of a medico-legal case and cognizable offence — failure to act on complaint to Superintendent of Police constitutes dereliction of duty. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if information discloses a cognizable offence; preliminary inquiry is only to ascertain if a cognizable offence is disclosed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Direction to constitute a special investigation team for investigation, register an FIR, and initiate disciplinary action against erring police officials. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
6. When is the registration of an FIR mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC?
Registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. A preliminary inquiry is permissible only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, not to verify the veracity of the information received. (Para 15 , 16 )
7. What is the duty of a Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the CrPC?
When a person aggrieved by a police officer's refusal to record information sends the substance in writing to the Superintendent of Police, the officer must satisfy himself whether the information discloses a cognizable offence and either investigate the case himself or direct a subordinate to do so. (Para 15 , 20 , 21 )
8. Does the police have a duty to register an FIR upon knowledge of a medico-legal case involving a cognizable offence?
Yes. Once the police are informed of a medico-legal case involving an injured person and the commission of a cognizable offence, they are duty-bound to register the offence and set the investigative machinery in motion promptly. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J
Leave granted.
2. Law requires, nay, ordains that its sentinels be vigilant, prompt and objective in enforcing and securing its mandate. To what extent the guardians of the law, viz., the police, discharge this task without bias and subjectivity is the question that arises in the case on hand. The complaint of the appellant before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, was that the police officers concerned had failed in their duty by not registering a first information report apropos the attack and assault on him by four individuals on 13.05.2023. However, by order dated 25.07.2024, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his writ petition, suspecting his bonafides. Hence, this appeal.
3. At the outset we may note that, while reserving judgment in this matter on 19.08.2025, we permitted the learned counsel for the parties to file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages, within three days. However, the State of Maharashtra and its officials chose not to file their written submissions, even though three weeks have passed. To make up for their lapse, perhaps, the learned counsel for the appellant chose to file written submissions running into as many as eleven pages!
4. This litigation has its moorings in the communal riots that broke out in Akola City, Maharashtra, on 13.05.2023 owing to a social media post. In his writ petition filed before the High Court, the appellant stated that, while he was returning at about 10.30-11.00 PM on that day from Mominpura area in Akola to his residence at Ambika Nagar, he passed over Raj Rajeshwar Setu Bridge in Kholeshwar area and saw four unknown persons assaulting one person, who was in an auto rickshaw, with a sword, iron pipe, etc., and the person was screaming. Two of the four assailants accosted him and said that it was his turn next. The appellant claimed that the other two assailants pulled the injured person out of the auto rickshaw and hit him on the face with an iron pipe, whereupon he collapsed. The appellant stated that the four assailants then damaged his vehicle and assaulted him with their weapons on his head and neck. He stated that he fell unconscious on the road and was taken by two good samaritans to Akola Main Hospital. His father, thereafter, took him to Icon Multispecialty Hospital in Akola, where he underwent treatment.
5. The appellant claimed that, on the second day, the District Collector along with police personnel visited him at Icon Hospital and the police recorded his statement. He claimed to have given all details to them but no action was taken. The appellant asserted that he was an eyewitness to the murderous assault on the person in the auto rickshaw, whose name was revealed to him later as Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad. The appellant stated that ‘it was well within the knowledge of the people of Akola’ that the deceased was plying the auto rickshaw of a Muslim, which bore a sticker with the name ‘Garib Nawaz’. The appellant stated that under the mistaken identity/belief that the deceased was a Muslim, the four unknown assailants had caused his death and, thereafter, attacked him. The appellant stated that these facts were affirmed by none other than a leader of the Maharashtra Congress as well as an MLC of the Nationalist Congress Party, whom he named. The appellant claimed that, after waiting for considerable time and as no offence was registered against the unknown assailants, he along with his father lodged written complaints on 01.06.2023 with the Police Station Officer of the Old City Police Station at Akola, respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, and the Superintendent of Police, SP Office at Akola, viz., Sandip Ghuge, who was impleaded eo nomine as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, but except for getting his statement recorded through one of the police personnel of the Old City Police Station at Akola, no other action was taken.
6. The appellant claimed that after a few days, during the festival of Shravan Somwa
