LexMOHAMMAD AFZAL MOHAMMAD SHARIF versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 78 : 2025 INSC 1100 Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. The State of Maharashtra and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 3976 of 2025) 11 September 2025 [Sanjay Kumar* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The complaint of the appellant before the High Court 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. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his writ petition, suspecting his bonafides. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 r/w. ss.34, 324, 325, 326 – 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 – 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 – No offence was registered against the unknown assailants – Appellant along with his father even lodged written complaints on 01.06.2023 with the Police Station Officer – 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 – Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed – The High Court observed that the writ petition was tainted with some ulterior motive and, therefore, it was not a fit case for exercise of power u/Art.226 of the Constitution – Correctness: Held: It is manifest from a plain reading of s.154 CrPC 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 – If the information received revealed commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to record the substance of the information in a book to be kept by the officer in the prescribed form – In effect, if the information received disclosed * Author [2025] 10 S.C.R. 79 Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v. The State of Maharashtra and Others commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to register an FIR – In the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the appellant was subjected to an assault during the riots and he was hospitalized for his head injury – At the very least, the assault upon him would have constituted an offence u/ss.324 or 325 or 326 of the IPC, which are all cognizable, and required decisive and prompt action on the part of the police – There is no denial either in the affidavit filed before this Court or in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the complaint dated 01.06.2023 was not received by Superintendent of Police – Conduct of Police officials is a cause of concern – It was for the police to investigate the truth or otherwise of the specific allegations made by the appellant, a 17-year-old boy, who asserted that he was an eyewitness to a murder and was himself assaulted by the very same assailants – Appellant claimed that he could identify one of the four assailants, that claim also required to be followed up with detailed investigation – The police authorities never followed up – Neither the officers of the Old City Police Station, Akola, nor Superintendent of Police, Akola, lived up to the expectation that reposed in them as upholders of the law to take prompt and appropriate action – In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to direct the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a special investigation team, comprising senior police officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities, to undertake an investigation into all the allegations made by the appellant, by registering an FIR in connection with the assault upon him on 13.05.2023, and take appropriate action thereon as warranted – Further, the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, directed to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police officials. [Paras 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24] Case Law Cited Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Others [2013] 14 SCR 713 : (2014) 2 SCC 1 – followed. Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2025 INSC 410 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 80 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports List of Keywords FIR; Non regi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.