In a significant ruling on police accountability, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 154 of the CrPC, registration of an FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence. The Court held that police inaction in such a scenario constitutes a dereliction of duty, and officers cannot avoid this statutory obligation by citing the victim’s failure to formally pursue the matter.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from the communal riots in Akola, Maharashtra, on May 13, 2023. The appellant, Mohammad Afzal, a 17-year-old minor, claimed that while returning home, he witnessed four unknown individuals brutally assaulting Vilas Gaikwad in an auto-rickshaw, mistaking him for a Muslim. The assailants then turned on Afzal, damaging his vehicle and attacking him on the head and neck with weapons, leaving him unconscious. He was hospitalized with a serious head injury, requiring stitches and treatment for a subdural hemorrhage.Despite the police being informed of his medico-legal case, no First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the assault on him. Afzal and his father submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police on June 1, 2023, but it was ignored. The police, in their defense, claimed Afzal was unfit to give a statement initially and later questioned the authenticity of a statement he produced. The High Court dismissed his petition, suspecting ulterior motives and faulting the delay. The Supreme Court, however, took serious note of the police’s failure to act on a cognizable offence and their neglect of statutory duty, leading to the appeal.
Procedural History:
The appellant, aggrieved by the police’s refusal to register an FIR concerning a violent assault on him during communal riots, initially filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. He sought directions for the registration of an FIR, a transfer of investigation to a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and action against the erring police officers. However, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his petition vide order dated July 25, 2024, doubting his bona fides and refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction at a belated stage, especially after a chargesheet had been filed in a related murder case. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP), which was granted leave, leading to the present criminal appeal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated September 11, 2025, allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and granting the reliefs sought by the appellant.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Overturns Death Penalty, Acquits Accused in Child Rape-Murder Case Due to Flawed Evidence
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made strong observations, condemning the police’s “total dereliction of duty” for failing to register an FIR despite having knowledge of a cognizable offence through the appellant’s medico-legal case. The Court firmly reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the CrPC, as established in the Lalita Kumari precedent, stating that the investigative machinery must be set in motion immediately upon receiving information about a cognizable offence, and the burden does not lie on the victim to pursue the police. It expressed deep concern over the conduct of the police officials, including the Superintendent of Police, for their inaction and for attributing motives to the appellant—a minor and an assault victim—instead of conducting a thorough investigation. The Court emphasized that police officers must shed all personal biases and uphold the law with absolute integrity, a duty they failed to fulfill in this instance.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. In its final judgement, the Court directed the Secretary of the Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities to investigate all of the appellant’s allegations. This SIT was mandated to formally register an FIR concerning the assault on the appellant and conduct a thorough probe. Furthermore, the Court ordered the initiation of appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officials for their patent dereliction of duty and mandated that the SIT submit its investigation report to the Supreme Court within three months.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif versus The State of Maharashtra and others Citation: 2025 INSC 1100 Criminal Appeal No.: (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8494 of 2025) Date of Judgement: September 11, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Download The Judgement Here