- Case
- ANNA MARUTI SHINDE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 07-04-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitution of India, Indian Penal Code, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Facts: Anna Maruti Shinde filed a writ petition after the death of his son, Akshay Shinde, who was arrested in connection with alleged sexual abuse of two minor girls. While in police custody pursuant to a production warrant, Akshay died in an incident of firing inside a police van. The petitioner alleges it was a fake encounter and seeks registration of an FIR and investigation by a Special Investigating Team (SIT). Despite the petitioner and his wife later expressing a desire to withdraw the petition due to financial constraints and delays, the court continued the proceedings, appointing an amicus curiae. A Magistrate's inquiry found merit in the allegations, raising doubts about the genuineness of the police encounter.
Procedural Posture: This is a criminal writ petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, seeking directions to the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation into the custodial death of the petitioner's son. The case was initiated due to the police's failure to register an FIR despite a complaint alleging a cognizable offence.
Issue: Is the police obligated to register an FIR when a complaint and a Magistrate's inquiry report prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, specifically in cases of alleged custodial death resulting from a police encounter, even if the complainant later wishes to withdraw the complaint? Furthermore, what are the appropriate procedures and guidelines to be followed in investigating such incidents to ensure transparency and accountability?
Holding: Yes, the police are obligated to register an FIR. The High Court constituted a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to investigate the custodial death, emphasizing the mandatory nature of FIR registration when a cognizable offence is disclosed, as per Lalita Kumari v. State of UP. The court rejected the State's arguments for delaying FIR registration pending further inquiry, citing the need for transparency and adherence to the guidelines established in PUCL (Supra) for investigating police encounters.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the principles enunciated in Lalita Kumari (Supra) make FIR registration mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence. The Court found the State's reluctance to register an FIR unjustifiable, especially considering the Magistrate's inquiry report supported the allegations. The Court emphasized that the State's duty to uphold constitutional principles and ensure fair investigation cannot be compromised, even if the original complainant wishes to withdraw the petition. The Court relied on PUCL (Supra) to highlight the guidelines for investigating police encounters, stressing the need for independent investigation and adherence to due process to maintain public trust in the justice system. The Court noted that the State CID had already submitted all documents to the Magistrate, making further investigation without an FIR questionable.
