MOHAMMAD AFZAL MOHAMMAD SHARIFversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                 [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 registration of FIR; Murder; Assault; Eyewitness to murder;
      Communal riots; Cognizable offence; Dereliction of duty; Special
      investigation team.

                             Case Arising From
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      3976 of 2025
      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2024 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in CRLWP No. 795 of 2023

                          Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant:
      Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, Sr. Adv., Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ms. Tasmiya
      Taleha, M. Huzaifa.
      Advs. for the Respondents:
      Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang
      B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh
      Dubey, Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

      Sanjay Kumar, J.

      Leave granted.
      Law requires, nay, ordains that its sentinels be vigilant, prompt and
      objective in enforcing and securing its mandate. To what extent the
      guardians of the law, viz., the police, discharge this task without
      bias and subjectivity is the question that arises in the case on hand.
      The complaint of the appellant before the High Court of Bombay,
      Nagpur Bench, 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.
      However, by order dated 25.07.2024, a Division Bench of the High
      Court dismissed his writ petition, suspecting his bonafides. Hence,
      this appeal.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                       81

                 Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Others

3.   At the outset we may note that, while reserving judgment in this
     matter on 19.08.2025, we permitted the learned counsel for the parties
     to file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages, within
     three days. However, the State of Maharashtra and its officials chose
     not to file their written submissions, even though three weeks have
     passed. To make up for their lapse, perhaps, the learned counsel
     for the appellant chose to file written submissions running into as
     many as eleven pages!
4.   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. In his writ petition filed before the High Court, the appellant
     stated that, while he was returning at about 10.30-11.00 PM on
     that day from Mominpura area in Akola to his residence at Ambika
     Nagar, he passed over Raj Rajeshwar Setu Bridge in Kholeshwar
     area and saw four unknown persons assaulting one person, who
     was in an auto rickshaw, with a sword, iron pipe, etc., and the person
     was screaming. Two of the four assailants accosted him and said
     that it was his turn next. The appellant claimed that the other two
     assailants pulled the injured person out of the auto rickshaw and
     hit him on the face with an iron pipe, whereupon he collapsed. The
     appellant stated that the four assailants then damaged his vehicle
     and assaulted him with their weapons on his head and neck. He
     stated that he fell unconscious on the road and was taken by two
     good samaritans to Akola Main Hospital. His father, thereafter, took
     him to Icon Multispecialty Hospital in Akola, where he underwent
     treatment.
5.   The appellant claimed that, on the second day, the District Collector
     along with police personnel visited him at Icon Hospital and the
     police recorded his statement. He claimed to have given all details
     to them but no action was taken. The appellant asserted that he
     was an eyewitness to the murderous assault on the person in the
     auto rickshaw, whose name was revealed to him later as Vilas
     Mahadevrao Gaikwad. The appellant stated that ‘it was well within
     the knowledge of the people of Akola’ that the deceased was plying
     the auto rickshaw of a Muslim, which bore a sticker with the name
     ‘Garib Nawaz’. 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. The appellant
82                                                              [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


        stated that these facts were affirmed by none other than a leader
        of the Maharashtra Congress as well as an MLC of the Nationalist
        Congress Party, whom he named. The appellant claimed that, after
        waiting for considerable time and as no offence was registered
        against the unknown assailants, he along with his father lodged
        written complaints on 01.06.2023 with the Police Station Officer of
        the Old City Police Station at Akola, respondent No. 4 in the writ
        petition, and the Superintendent of Police, SP Office at Akola, viz.,
        Sandip Ghuge, who was impleaded eo nomine as respondent No.
        3 in the writ petition, but 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.
6.      The appellant claimed that after a few days, during the festival of
        Shravan Somwar, he had occasion to go by Raj Rajeshwar Setu
        Bridge and happened to see a flex board of a politician of Shiv Sena
        party. Therein, he found that the photographs of one of the four
        assailants and of the deceased, Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad, were
        affixed. He, thereupon, took a snapshot of the said flex board on his
        mobile phone. His enquiries thereafter revealed that an offence in
        FIR No. 152 of 2023 was registered by the Old City Police Station
        at Akola at the instance of the deceased’s relative against members
        of the Muslim community but there was no mention whatsoever
        of the appellant, who was an eyewitness to the murder of Vilas
        Mahadevrao Gaikwad. The chargesheet having been filed in relation
        to the aforesaid FIR, the case was numbered as RCC No. 954 of
        2023 before the Magistrate’s Court.
7.      However, as no separate FIR was registered in relation to the assault
        upon him till the date of filing of the writ petition, the appellant prayed
        for a direction to the police authorities concerned to register an
        offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
        Code, 18601, against the four unknown assailants, one of whom
        was now identifiable through the snapshot available with him. He
        sought a further direction to transfer the investigation in relation
        thereto to a special investigation team of competent and impartial
        police officers of integrity to investigate the life-threatening assault
        upon him and the fatal assault upon Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad.


1     for short, ‘IPC’
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          83

                 Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Others

     He also sought a consequential direction to initiate departmental,
     civil and criminal proceedings against the erring police officers for
     dereliction of their duties.
8.   Perusal of the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed by a Division
     Bench of the High Court demonstrates that the learned counsel for the
     appellant did not choose to press his prayer in relation to registration
     of an FIR under Sections 307 and 34 IPC in relation to the attack
     upon the appellant but as regards the remaining three prayers, it was
     asserted that the appellant was an eyewitness to the incident and
     that the investigation was deliberately moulded to indicate something
     other than the truth. The High Court took note of the affidavit in reply
     filed by one Nitin Uttamrao Levaharkar, Police Inspector, Old City
     Police Station, Akola, who denied that the statement of the appellant
     had been recorded. He claimed that information had been received
     in the police station about the admission of the appellant to the
     hospital, but when an officer went there to record his statement, it
     was certified that he was not in a position to speak. This, as per the
     said police inspector, happened on 14.05.2023. He further stated that
     none of the relations of the appellant tried to lodge a first information
     report with the police. According to him, the investigation in relation
     to the murder was completed and a chargesheet was filed before
     the competent Court. He asserted that, as the investigation was
     complete, there was no question of handing over the investigation
     to any other ‘forum’.
9.   Surprisingly, the High Court found fault with the relatives of
     the appellant for not trying to lodge a report with the police
     immediately. Having noted that the case of the appellant was that
     his statement had been recorded on 15.05.2023 in the hospital and
     that photographs of that statement were produced, the High Court
     observed that there were no details as to who was the person who
     had taken the said statement and there was no signature or mention
     of the designation of the person taking the statement, Accepting
     the claim of the police that no such statement was recorded, the
     High Court chose to disbelieve the statement produced before it. As
     regards the claim of the appellant that he was an eyewitness to the
     murderous assault on Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad, the High Court
     observed that the appellant had not explained as to why he did not
     voluntarily go to the police station to get his statement recorded
84                                                        [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


      within reasonable time. In summation, the High Court held that it
      could not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution at
      a belated stage at the request of an alleged eyewitness, after the
      chargesheet was already filed. The order ended with the observation
      that it appeared that the writ petition was tainted with some ulterior
      motive and, therefore, it was not a fit case for exercise of power
      under Article 226 of the Constitution. Stating so, the High Court
      dismissed the writ petition.
10. Notice having been ordered in this matter on 23.05.2025, the very
    same Nitin Uttamrao Levaharkar, Police Inspector, Old City Police
    Station, Akola, filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the State of
    Maharashtra. It is surprising that, in a matter involving the State,
    represented by the Chief Secretary, and its Home Ministry, wherein a
    serious issue has been raised before the highest Court in the country,
    no senior official chose to file an affidavit before this Court and left
    it to an Inspector of the local police station to do the needful. More
    so, as serious allegations were made against a Superintendent of
    Police, who was impleaded by name.
11. In his affidavit, the Inspector again affirmed what he had stated
    before the High Court. According to him, there were eyewitnesses to
    the fatal attack on Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and pursuant to the
    investigation undertaken, eleven accused persons were identified by
    the said eyewitnesses. Three of those accused are stated to have
    made confessional statements, leading to recoveries under Section
    27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He again reiterated that, when
    an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police visited the hospital pursuant to
    a mobile call, the appellant was found unfit to give a statement and
    this was entered in the General Diary. He pointed out that the so-
    called statement annexed by the appellant bore neither the remark of
    the attending medical officer regarding his fitness nor the signature
    of the police officer who recorded it and, therefore, its authenticity
    was doubtful. He stated that, though the appellant got discharged
    on 16.05.2023, he did not submit his complaint till after 15 days,
    i.e., on 01.06.2023, through his father. He concluded his affidavit
    by stating that the appellant’s claim of being an eyewitness was
    never substantiated during investigation nor was credible material
    produced to show that the police were aware of his status as such
    before completion of the investigation.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                            85

                        Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v.
                        The State of Maharashtra and Others

12. It is relevant to note that the appellant is stated to have been 17
    years of age at the relevant time. Before the High Court, being a
    minor, he was represented by his father.
13. The General Diary maintained by the Old City Police Station, Akola,
    which was produced before the High Court, reflected that an entry
    was made therein on 14.05.2023 at 16:03 hours, which read to the
    following effect: ‘At 02:15, Ward Boy of Icon Hospital, Naresh Nandu
    Nibe, aged 34, brought MLC 5580 that Mohammad Afzal Mohammad
    Sharif had been admitted in the hospital in an injured condition for
    medical treatment and his condition was stable. ASI 743 PC 2370
    went to record the statement’. Thereafter, another entry was made
    at 16:48 hours on 14.05.2023 that ASI 743 PC 2370 came back
    from Icon Hospital and submitted that the doctor gave in writing
    that the injured Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif was not in a
    position to speak.
14. Significantly, it is the case of the appellant that his statement was
    actually recorded on 15.05.2023, i.e., the next day, when the District
    Collector came there along with police personnel and one of the
    policemen recorded his statement. In any event, once the police
    station was informed of a medico-legal case involving the appellant
    who was admitted in the hospital in connection therewith, in an
    injured condition, and as the police would have been well aware of
    the riots that were taking place, a duty was cast upon the police to
    register the cognizable offence that had been brought to their notice.
15. 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 in that regard
    and that the police were not required to take any steps, despite
    their knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence. In this
    regard, reference may be made to Section 154 of the Code of
    Criminal Procedure, 19732, which was holding the field at that time.
    This provision reads as under:
              ‘154. Information in cognizable cases.— (1) Every
              information relating to the commission of a cognizable
              offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police


2   for short, ‘the CrPC’
86                                                     [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


      station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
      direction, and be read over to the informant; and every
      such information, whether given in writing or reduced to
      writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it,
      and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be
      kept by such officer in such form as the State Government
      may prescribe in this behalf:
      Provided that if the information is given by the woman
      against whom an offence under section 326A, section
      326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section
      354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section
      376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section
      376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the
      Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been
      committed or attempted, then such information shall be
      recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
      Provided further that—
      (a) in the event that the person against whom an offence
      under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section
      354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section
      376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section
      376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the
      Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been
      committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently
      mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall
      be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the
      person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient
      place of such person’s choice, in the presence of an
      interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
      (b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed;
      (c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person
      recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-
      section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.
      (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section
      (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
      (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of
      an officer in charge of a police station to record the
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                           87

                     Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v.
                     The State of Maharashtra and Others

            information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the
            substance of such information, in writing and by post, to
            the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied
            that such information discloses the commission of a
            cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself
            or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer
            subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code,
            and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer
            in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.’
16. 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. 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 commission of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory to
    register an FIR. In this context, useful reference may be made to the
    following observations of a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari vs.
    Govt. of U.P. and others3:
            ‘120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
            120.1. 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.
            120.2. If the information received does not disclose a
            cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an
            inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
            ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
            120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
            cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases
            where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint,
            a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to
            the first informant forthwith and not later than one week.
            It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint
            and not proceeding further.


3   (2014) 2 SCC 1
88                                                     [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


      120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering
      offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be
      taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if
      information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
      120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
      the veracity or otherwise of the information received but
      only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
      cognizable offence.
      120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary
      inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
      circumstances of each case. The category of cases in
      which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
      (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
      (b) Commercial offences
      (c) Medical negligence cases
      (d) Corruption cases
      (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating
      criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in
      reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
      reasons for delay.
      The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of
      all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
      120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the
      accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should
      be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed
      fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving
      adequate reasons, six weeks’ time is provided. The fact
      of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in
      the General Diary entry.
      120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is
      the record of all information received in a police station, we
      direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
      whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an
      inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in
      the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary
      inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.’
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                             89

                    Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v.
                    The State of Maharashtra and Others

17. Referring to the above observations in Imran Pratapgadhi vs.
    State of Gujarat and another4, a coordinate Bench of this Court
    observed as under:
            ‘23. Section 154 of the CrPC does not provide for making
            any preliminary inquiry. However, as held in the case of
            Lalita Kumari, a preliminary inquiry is permissible if the
            information received does not disclose a cognizable offence
            and indicates the necessity for an inquiry. A preliminary
            inquiry must be conducted only to ascertain whether a
            cognizable offence is disclosed. However, sub-Section (3)
            of Section 173 of the BNSS makes a significant departure
            from Section 154 of the CrPC. It provides that when
            information relating to the commission of a cognizable
            offence which is made punishable for 3 years or more but
            less than 7 years is received by an officer-in-charge of a
            police station, with the prior permission of a superior officer
            as mentioned therein, the police officer is empowered to
            conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there
            exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter.
            However, under Section 154 of the CrPC, as held in the
            case of Lalita Kumari, only a limited preliminary inquiry is
            permissible to ascertain whether the information received
            discloses a cognizable offence. Moreover, a preliminary
            inquiry can be made under the CrPC only if the information
            does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence
            but indicates the necessity for an inquiry. Sub-Section (3)
            of Section 173 of the BNSS is an exception to sub-
            Section (1) of Section 173. In the category of cases
            covered by sub-Section (3), a police officer is empowered
            to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a
            prima facie case is made out for proceeding in the matter
            even if the information received discloses commission of
            any cognizable offence. That is very apparent as sub-
            Section (3) of Section 173 refers explicitly to receiving
            information relating to the commission of a cognizable
            offence. Therefore, in a case where sub-Section (3) of
            Section 173 is applicable, even if the information pertaining


4   2025 INSC 410
90                                                          [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


           to the commission of any cognizable offence is received,
           an inquiry can be conducted to ascertain whether a prima
           facie case exists for proceeding in the matter. The intention
           appears to be to prevent the registration of FIRs in frivolous
           cases where punishment is up to 7 years, even if the
           information discloses the commission of the cognizable
           offence. However, under Section 154 of the CrPC, the
           inquiry permitted by paragraph 120.2 of the decision in the
           case of Lalita Kumari is limited only to ascertain whether
           the cognizable offence is disclosed.
           24. Under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS,
           after holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to
           a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed,
           he should immediately register an FIR and proceed to
           investigate. But, if he is of the view that a prima facie
           case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately
           inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail
           a remedy under sub-Section (4) of Section 173.’
18. Some of the aforestated observations were made in the context
    of Section 173 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
    However, Section 154 CrPC was in operation at the relevant point
    of time and the observations made in that context are of relevance
    presently. Therefore, the inaction of the officer-in-charge of the Old
    City Police Station, Akola, despite being made aware of Medico-
    Legal Case No. 5580, involving the appellant, and his admission
    in the hospital, 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.
19. It cannot be disputed that the appellant was subjected to an assault
    during the riots, on the night of 13.05.2023, requiring his hospitalization
    for his head injury. At the very least, the assault upon him would have
    constituted an offence under Sections 324 or 325 or 326 of the IPC,
    which are all cognizable, and required decisive and prompt action
    on the part of the police as soon as they came to know about it. The
    medical reports from Icon Hospital placed on record by the appellant
    before the High Court showed that he was admitted on 14.05.2023
    at 01.14 AM and was discharged on 16.05.2023 at 11.00 AM. The
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                      91

                 Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Others

     reports further indicated that the diagnosis was ‘assault with head
     injury’. The appellant required sutures for his head injury and the
     treatment/course in the hospital was noted as under:
          ‘L/E – HEAD INJURY WITH SUTURES +’
          ‘PT WAS ADMITTED IN ICON IN WARD WITH ABOVE
          COMPLAINTS
          HISTORY NOTED
          CT BRAIN WAS DONE WHICH S/O SUBGALEAL
          HAEMATOMA, WITH ACUTE HYPERDENSE SUBDURAL
          HAEMORRHGE IN VIEW OF THAT NEUROSURGEON
          OPINION WAS DONE BY DR. U. GADAPAL SIR WHICH
          ADVICE, INJ LEVERA, MANNITOL,
          GENERAL SURGEON OPINION WAS DONE BY DR.
          AVINASH TELGOTE SIR USG (A+P) WAS DONE WHICH
          S/O- NAD
          ALL OTHER CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT AND
          MANAGEMENT WAS DONE
          NOW ON DATE 16/5/23 PT IS HAEMODYNAMICALLY
          STABLE AND HAVING NO ANY FRESH COMPLAINTS
          SO ADVICES CAN BE DISCHARGED.
          DRESSING DONE TODAY
          BUT RELATIVES WANT TO SHIFT TO DR. ZEESHAN
          SIR HOSPITAL AKOLA.’
20. What is even more distressing to note is that the appellant made
    a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Akola, on
    01.06.2023, through his father, but to no avail. Section 154(3) CrPC
    permits a person, aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the officer-
    in-charge of a police station to record the information as per Section
    154(1) CrPC, to send the substance of such information in writing to
    the Superintendent of Police concerned. The provision requires the
    said Superintendent of Police to satisfy himself as to whether the
    information received disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence
    and to either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation
    to be made by a police officer subordinate to him.
92                                                        [2025] 10 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


21. 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 Sandip Ghuge, Superintendent
    of Police, Akola, respondent No. 3 before the High Court and before
    us. There is no explanation forthcoming as to whether he even
    undertook an enquiry to satisfy himself about the truth or otherwise
    of the information received, as mandated by the provision. This
    conduct on the part of a superior police officer of no less a rank
    than a Superintendent of Police is indeed a cause for great concern.
22. Though the affidavits filed by the police inspector of the Old City
    Police Station, Akola, tried to attribute motives to the appellant and
    the same was willingly accepted and acted upon by the High Court,
    we are not persuaded to agree at this stage. 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 the murder of Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and was
    himself assaulted by the very same assailants. If, in fact, the deceased
    was really murdered under the impression that he belonged to
    Muslim community and the assailants were not of that community,
    that was a fact that had to be ascertained after thorough and proper
    investigation. When the appellant claimed that he could identify one
    of the four assailants, that claim also required to be followed up with
    detailed investigation by ascertaining the location of the person so
    identified at the relevant time through mobile phone location, call
    data records, etc.
23. Needless to state, when members of the police force don their
    uniforms, they are required to shed their personal predilections and
    biases, be they religious, racial, casteist or otherwise. They must
    be true to the call of duty attached to their office and their uniform
    with absolute and total integrity. Unfortunately, in the case on hand,
    this did not happen. Be it for whatever reason, the police authorities
    never followed up on Medico-Legal Case No. 5580 involving the
    appellant, though they had information of the same at 02.15 AM on
    14.05.2023 itself, i.e., shortly after the admission of the appellant
    at Icon Hospital. Neither the officers of the Old City Police Station,
    Akola, nor Sandip Ghuge, Superintendent of Police, Akola, lived up
    to the expectation that reposed in them as upholders of the law to
    take prompt and appropriate action.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.                                                          93

                    Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif v.
                    The State of Maharashtra and Others

24. In these circumstances, we are 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,
    shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all erring police
    officials, in accordance with law and due procedure, for the patent
    dereliction of duties, as has been noted hereinbefore. Measures
    shall also be initiated to instruct and sensitize the rank and file in the
    police department as to what law requires of them in the discharge
    of their duties.
25. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the aforestated terms.
26. The investigation report of the special investigation team, to be
    constituted pursuant to the direction of this Court, shall be placed
    before this Court within three months from today.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan