Police Duty to Register FIR Under Section 154: Supreme Court's Directive

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of police responsibility in registering First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The case, Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, highlights the imperative for law enforcement to act promptly and without bias when informed of a cognizable offence. This judgment not only reinforces the legal obligations of police officers but also underscores the necessity for accountability within the police force.

Case Background

The appellant, Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, alleging that the police failed to register an FIR regarding an assault on him during communal riots in Akola City on May 13, 2023. The appellant claimed he was an eyewitness to a violent attack on another individual, Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad, and was subsequently assaulted himself. Despite his injuries and the gravity of the situation, the police did not take any action to register his complaint.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, questioning his motives and the timing of his complaint. This dismissal prompted the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking justice and accountability from the police.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was based on several factors, including the assertion that the appellant had not promptly approached the police to record his statement. The court accepted the police's claim that they had no record of the appellant's statement and that the investigation into the murder of Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad was already complete. The High Court expressed skepticism about the appellant's credibility, suggesting ulterior motives behind his complaint.

The High Court's ruling raised concerns about the police's inaction and the implications of their failure to register an FIR, which is a fundamental right of individuals under the CrPC when a cognizable offence is reported.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Sanjay Kumar, critically examined the High Court's findings and the police's conduct. The Court emphasized that the police have a statutory duty to register an FIR when they receive information about a cognizable offence. The Court referred to Section 154 of the CrPC, which mandates that any information relating to a cognizable offence must be recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.

The Court highlighted that the police's failure to act upon the appellant's complaint constituted a dereliction of duty. It noted that the police were aware of the appellant's admission to the hospital and the circumstances surrounding his injuries, which should have prompted immediate action to register an FIR. The Court criticized the High Court for placing the burden on the appellant to pursue the police for action, stating that it is the police's responsibility to initiate investigations upon receiving credible information.

Statutory Interpretation

The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 154 of the CrPC was pivotal in this case. The Court reiterated that the registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court referenced the landmark judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., which established that no preliminary inquiry is permissible when the information reveals a cognizable offence. The Court underscored that the police cannot avoid their duty to register an FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence, and failure to do so warrants disciplinary action against the erring officers.

Constitutional or Policy Context

The ruling also touches upon broader constitutional principles, particularly the right to access justice and the role of the police as protectors of public safety. The Court's insistence on prompt police action reflects a commitment to uphold the rule of law and ensure that victims of crime receive the protection and justice they deserve. The judgment serves as a reminder of the police's duty to act impartially and without bias, particularly in sensitive cases involving communal tensions.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the legal principle that police officers must act promptly and without bias when informed of a cognizable offence. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the accountability mechanisms that exist to ensure police compliance with their statutory duties. Secondly, the directive to form a special investigation team underscores the need for impartiality in investigations, particularly in cases involving communal violence. This approach aims to restore public confidence in the police and the justice system.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the Secretary of the Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, to constitute a special investigation team to investigate the allegations made by the appellant. The Court also mandated that appropriate disciplinary action be taken against the police officials involved in the dereliction of duty. The investigation report from the special investigation team is to be submitted to the Court within three months.

Case Details

• Case Title: Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
• Citation: 2025 INSC 1100
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
• Date of Judgment: 2025-09-11