Supreme Court Directs SIT, Orders FIR and Disciplinary Action Over Police Inaction in Riot Assault Case

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the criminal appeal against a Division Bench order of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which had dismissed a writ petition by an assault victim alleging police inaction during communal riots. The appeal challenged the High Court’s disbelief of the petitioner’s claim of being an eyewitness to a murder and its conclusion that the petition was “tainted with some ulterior motive.”

The Court allowed the appeal and directed the State to ensure an independent and prompt investigation. The Court ordered the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a special investigation team comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, to register an FIR in respect of the assault on the appellant on 13.05.2023 and to investigate all related allegations; it further directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against erring police officers and required the SIT’s report to be placed before the Court within three months. The Court emphasised the mandatory duty of police under Section 154 CrPC to act upon information of a cognizable offence and to register an FIR when such information disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is manifest from a plain reading of the aforestated provision that once information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given to the officer-in-charge of a police station, the investigative machinery is required to be set in motion... The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation." The Court also recorded that the failures amounted to a “total dereliction of duty” and warned that police must “shed their personal predilections and biases” when discharging statutory duties.

Background The dispute arose from communal riots in Akola City on 13.05.2023 following a social media post. The appellant, then aged 17, stated that while returning home he witnessed four persons assaulting an occupant of an auto rickshaw and that the assailants then attacked him, causing head injuries requiring hospitalisation. He claimed to be an eyewitness to the fatal attack on Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and later identified one assailant from a flex board photograph. The appellant said he was taken to Icon Multispecialty Hospital and that police personnel recorded his statement the next day when the District Collector visited the hospital; he alleged no FIR was registered despite written complaints submitted on 01.06.2023 to the Old City Police Station and to the Superintendent of Police, Akola.

The High Court recorded police denials, reliance on General Diary entries that an officer found the appellant unfit to speak on 14.05.2023, and the absence of signature or designation on the statement produced by the appellant; it observed delay by the appellant’s relatives in lodging a report and declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, remarking on purported ulterior motive. Before the Supreme Court, the police reiterated that investigation of the murder had identified accused persons and that the appellant’s claim was unsubstantiated.

The Supreme Court reviewed the General Diary entries, medical records showing admission on 14.05.2023 for “assault with head injury,” and applicable law under Section 154 CrPC and the Court’s precedent in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. The Court held that police knowledge of a medico-legal case obliged registration of an FIR when the information disclosed a cognizable offence and that the Superintendent of Police had a statutory duty under Section 154(3) CrPC to inquire when information was forwarded. Finding failure to record and follow up the appellant’s statement and no explanation of the Superintendent’s conduct, the Court concluded that the inaction manifested dereliction of duty and ordered constitution of an SIT, registration of the FIR relating to the assault on the appellant, and departmental action against erring officers. The appeal was allowed in these terms and the SIT’s report was directed to be filed within three months.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1100 Case Title: Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. The State of Maharashtra and others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]