Mandatory FIR Registration Upon Cognizable Offense Disclosure: Bombay High Court Orders SIT Probe into Custodial Death - 2025-04-08

Bombay High Court Mandates FIR Registration and SIT Probe in Custodial Death Case

Mumbai, April 7, 2025 – The Bombay High Court, in a significant judgment delivered today, has firmly reiterated the mandatory nature of registering a First Information Report (FIR) when information disclosing a cognizable offense is brought to the police's attention. Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale , presiding over a Criminal Writ Petition, have directed the formation of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to probe the custodial death of Akshay Shinde , an accused in a sexual abuse case.

Case Background: Alleged Fake Encounter

The case arose from a petition filed by Anna Maruti Shinde, the father of the deceased, Akshay Shinde . Akshay was arrested in connection with the alleged sexual abuse of two minor girls and was in judicial custody. Subsequently, while being transported by police from Taloja Jail, an incident occurred inside the police van resulting in Akshay 's death and injury to a police officer. The petitioner alleged that this was a "fake encounter" and sought registration of an FIR and an investigation by an SIT, citing inaction from the police.

Court's Intervention and Initial Concerns

Initially, the court noted with concern the absence of an FIR despite a complaint from the petitioner and the Magistrate's inquiry report suggesting doubts over the police's version of events. Despite the petitioner and his wife later expressing a desire to withdraw the petition due to financial constraints and prolonged delays, the High Court deemed it crucial to proceed, emphasizing the broader implications for the rule of law and public trust in the police. The court appointed Senior Advocate Mrs. Manjula Rao as amicus curiae to assist in the matter.

Arguments Presented

Senior Advocate Mr. Amit Desai, representing the State, argued that the State CID was already investigating the incident and had complied with Supreme Court guidelines in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra . He contended that the Magistrate's inquiry report was limited to determining the cause of death and its findings were not binding in the ongoing investigation. He emphasized that the State was committed to carrying the investigation to its logical conclusion.

Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Manjula Rao , strongly argued for the mandatory registration of an FIR under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), equivalent to Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). She cited the landmark judgment of Lalita Kumari v. State of UP , asserting that any information disclosing a cognizable offense necessitates FIR registration, irrespective of the information's credibility at the initial stage. She highlighted that the petitioner’s complaint and the circumstances surrounding the custodial death clearly constituted information warranting an FIR.

Reliance on Landmark Judgments and Principles

The High Court bench extensively discussed the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari , emphasizing the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offenses. The court quoted key findings from Lalita Kumari , including:

> “(i) the legislative intent of introducing 154 (now 173 of BNSS) is to make registration of FIR mandatory, in a case of cognizable offence without conducting any preliminary inquiry… (vii) Section 154(1) of the Code has cautiously used the expression ‘information’ without qualifying the same… Thus, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. Consequently, the condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.”

The court also referred to the PUCL guidelines concerning police encounters, noting the irony that guideline 31.2, which mandates FIR registration in encounter deaths, was itself being ignored in this case. The bench underscored the heightened need for transparency in custodial death cases, particularly when the deceased was in police custody.

Court's Decision and Implications

The Bombay High Court firmly concluded that the failure to register an FIR, despite the petitioner's complaint and the Magistrate's report raising serious questions, was a violation of established legal principles. The court stated:

> “Reasonableness and credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of an FIR. Consequently, the only condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence, both present in the present matter.”

Consequently, the court directed the constitution of an SIT under the supervision of Shri Lakhmi Gautam , Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime, Mumbai. The SIT is mandated to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation, adhering to the principles of Lalita Kumari and other relevant legal standards, and bring the case to its logical conclusion. The State CID was ordered to hand over all investigation papers to the SIT within two days.

The High Court rejected the State's request for a stay on the order, emphasizing the urgency and importance of a fair investigation to uphold the rule of law and maintain public confidence in the justice system. This judgment serves as a strong reminder of the police's duty to register FIRs promptly upon receiving information about cognizable offenses and reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring accountability, especially in cases of custodial death.