Registration of FIR is Mandatory Under S.154 CrPC for Cognizable Offences; Police Inaction is Dereliction of Duty: Supreme Court - 2025-09-11

Legal News & Court Updates.

Supreme Court Orders SIT Probe into Akola Riots Assault, Slams Police for "Total Dereliction of Duty"

New Delhi: In a scathing indictment of the Maharashtra Police, the Supreme Court has ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe an assault on a 17-year-old during the 2023 Akola communal riots, after police failed to register an FIR despite having information about the cognizable offence. The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Kumar, rebuked the police for their inaction and the Bombay High Court for dismissing the victim's plea with suspicions about his motives.

---

Case Background: An Eyewitness Ignored

The case originates from the communal riots in Akola City on May 13, 2023. The appellant, Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, then a 17-year-old, claimed he witnessed the fatal assault on a man named Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad. He alleged that Gaikwad was attacked by four assailants under the mistaken belief that he was a Muslim. Immediately after, the same assailants attacked the appellant, causing a severe head injury that required hospitalization.

Despite the hospital informing the police about the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) and the appellant's father lodging written complaints with the local police station and the Superintendent of Police, Sandip Ghuge, no FIR was registered concerning the assault on the appellant. The police proceeded to investigate Gaikwad's murder separately, filing a chargesheet against members of the Muslim community, without ever recording the appellant's statement as an alleged eyewitness. The appellant's writ petition seeking registration of an FIR and an impartial investigation was dismissed by the Bombay High Court, which questioned his "bonafides" and the delay in his complaint.

Arguments Before the Court

The appellant argued that the police deliberately ignored his complaint and his eyewitness account of Gaikwad's murder. He contended that his statement was recorded in the hospital a day after the incident but was subsequently suppressed. His counsel asserted that the investigation into the murder was moulded to fit a particular narrative, ignoring crucial evidence that could identify the real perpetrators.

The State of Maharashtra , represented by a local police inspector, denied that the appellant's statement was ever recorded. They claimed that when an officer visited the hospital, a doctor certified the appellant was "not in a position to speak." They blamed the appellant and his family for the delay in lodging a formal complaint and dismissed his eyewitness claim as unsubstantiated.

Court's Analysis: Police Duty is Not Discretionary

The Supreme Court unequivocally rejected the police's justification and the High Court's reasoning, holding that the police have a mandatory duty to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.

Pivotal Judgment Excerpts: > "Needless to state, when members of the police force don their uniforms, they are required to shed their personal predilections and biases... They must be true to the call of duty... Unfortunately, in the case on hand, this did not happen."

The Court emphasized that the police were informed of the appellant's admission to the hospital for a head injury sustained during the riots, which in itself constituted a cognizable offence. Their failure to act was deemed a "total dereliction of duty."

> "The inaction of the officer-in-charge of the Old City Police Station, Akola... and the failure in following through by recording his statement at the earliest opportunity and registering an FIR in that regard, clearly manifests total dereliction of duty on his part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness."

Legal Principles Applied: The bench heavily relied on the constitutional bench judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. and others , reiterating that Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes the registration of an FIR mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence. The Court stated: > "Neither the Police Inspector nor the High Court are correct in their assumption and understanding that it was for the appellant or his relatives to pursue the police to take necessary steps... and that the police were not required to take any steps, despite their knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence."

The conduct of the Superintendent of Police, who failed to act on the written complaint sent under Section 154 (3) CrPC, was described as "a cause for great concern."

Final Decision and Directives

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It issued the following directives:

1. SIT Formation: The Secretary of the Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, is directed to constitute an SIT, comprising senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities, to investigate all allegations made by the appellant.
2. FIR Registration: The SIT must register an FIR in connection with the assault on the appellant.
3. Disciplinary Action: The Home Secretary shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officials for their "patent dereliction of duties."
4. Sensitization: Measures must be taken to instruct and sensitize the police force about their legal duties.

The Court has ordered the SIT to submit its investigation report within three months, underscoring the urgency of ensuring an unbiased and thorough probe.