Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal arising from a Special Leave Petition against an order of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated 25.07.2024, which dismissed the appellant's writ petition. The appellant, a minor at the relevant time, was injured during communal riots in Akola on 13.05.2023. He alleged that while returning home, he witnessed four unknown assailants fatally attacking Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and then assaulting him, causing injuries to his head and neck. He was admitted to Icon Multispecialty Hospital. Although the police visited the hospital, they did not register any FIR regarding the attack on him. The police registered FIR No. 152 of 2023 at the instance of the deceased's relative against members of the Muslim community, but the appellant was not mentioned as an eyewitness. After waiting and lodging written complaints on 01.06.2023 with the Old City Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, no separate FIR was registered for the assault on him. The appellant sought directions for registration of FIR under Sections 307 and 34 IPC, transfer of investigation to a special investigation team, and initiation of proceedings against erring police officers. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that it was tainted with ulterior motive and filed at a belated stage after chargesheet. Before the Supreme Court, the police inspector filed a counter affidavit reiterating that the appellant was unfit to give a statement on 14.05.2023 and that his relatives did not lodge a complaint. However, the General Diary entries showed that the police station was informed of a medico-legal case involving the appellant and that an ASI visited the hospital but returned because the doctor certified him unfit to speak. The Supreme Court observed that Section 154 CrPC mandates registration of a cognizable offence when information is received, and the duty to register does not depend on the victim or relatives pursuing the police. The Court also criticised the High Court for wrongly suspecting the appellant's motives and for ignoring the police's own diary entries. The judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final operative order, but the available reasoning clearly favours the appellant's contention that the police failed in their statutory duty under Section 154 CrPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Mandatory Police Duty on Receipt of Information of Cognizable Offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - The police received medico-legal information of an injured person admitted to hospital during communal riots, and General Diary entries recorded that an ASI visited the hospital but the doctor certified him unfit to speak. The Court held that once the police station was informed of a medico-legal case involving an injured person, a duty was cast upon the police to register the cognizable offence brought to their notice, regardless of the victim's fitness to give a statement or lack of complaint by relatives. Held that the police cannot await pursuit by the victim or relatives (Paras 14-15). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - High Court's Dismissal on Grounds of Delay and Suspected Ulterior Motive - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding fault with the appellant's relatives for not lodging a report immediately and suspecting the petition to be tainted with ulterior motive. The Supreme Court observed that neither the police inspector nor the High Court were correct in their assumption that it was for the appellant or his relatives to pursue the police, and that the High Court erred in disbelieving the appellant's statement without considering the General Diary entries. Held that guardians of the law must be vigilant, prompt and objective, and the High Court should not refuse relief on suspicion of motive when police dereliction is evident (Paras 2, 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether police were duty-bound to register FIR under Section 154 CrPC upon receiving information of a cognizable offence through a medico-legal case entry, despite the victim being unfit to give a statement and no formal complaint by relatives; whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of delay and suspected ulterior motive.
Final Decision
The provided judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final operative order. However, the Supreme Court's available reasoning indicates that the police had a mandatory duty under Section 154 CrPC to register the cognizable offence upon receiving medico-legal information, and the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of delay and suspected ulterior motive was erroneous. Final relief/directions are not stated in the truncated text.
Law Points
- Police have mandatory duty to register FIR under Section 154 CrPC upon receiving information of cognizable offence
- duty arises from medico-legal entry in General Diary even if victim unfit to give statement
- complainant or relatives need not pursue police
- High Court cannot dismiss writ petition on suspicion of ulterior motive when police dereliction shown
- Article 226 relief cannot be denied merely because chargesheet filed
